Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:14, 19 January 2014

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

A charge of wikihounding**

Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) feels they're being hounded by Jaggee (talk · contribs). This all started with an ANI thread, now archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824, "URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation". Jaggee is a new editor who noted a possible problem in an article Luke had been working on; a somewhat lengthy thread with some animosities was closed without action toward either editor. As a result, Jaggee made various comments on their user page (now changed, but see this version). It is noteworthy that they took the supposed copyvio to ANI, claiming that's what WP:DCV suggested they do--but read Jaggee's talk page, "A second welcome to Misplaced Pages", where I remarked that this is the last thing it suggests, not the first. The only article edits Jaggee has made were to that particular article, Allard J2X-C-- Luke's work, and passed as a GA by Resolute. They they went on to comment on that article's talk page and on a related thread at WP:RSN ("Car racing websites"), pertaining to a DYK nomination by Luke. They made no other edits besides on my talk page and a few others, nothing in article space.

Further unpleasantries are found on my talk page, where you may find Luke being a bit brusque, accusing Jaggee of being a sock (that evidence does not yet need to be hashed out here, in my opinion). But essentially, it seems to me that Jaggee indeed has no other interest as of yet besides Luke's work, and that fits our definition of hounding, a type of harassment:

Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Misplaced Pages.

Both LadyofShalott and I suggested that each find their separate corners in which to edit, so to speak, advice that Jaggee did not follow given their edits to RSN, for instance, and what I am asking for here is confirmation that this means that Jaggee should find another corner, not one where Luke is already editing. This shouldn't be a difficult thing to do given the large number of corners available. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy to have myself and Jaggee kept separate, as I've said publicly a few times. Maybe that way I'll be able to return to editing in peace (or be able to take a break in peace, equally) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I affirm my prior advice, which as Drmies points out has not been heeded. Luke seems to want to stay away from Jaggee, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps a formal interaction ban is what is needed. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I had previously given Jaggee similar advice, likewise not taken. Perhaps indeed it needs to be set up as an editing restriction. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke feels they're the one being hounded?!

Luke on Jaggee at Talk:Allard_J2X-C yesterday: "Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. " (and more of the same in the past).

I don't know Jaggee from a hole in the road. But I do know that we have AGF. They're also a new editor. Even if they have acted entirely wrongly and excessively over the very minor off-wiki copyvio issue in this article, they have acted reasonably over that issue. Their actions could be mistaken, over-reactions and mis-placed, but while there is the slightest belief that they are a new editor trying to find their way through the impenetrable forest of WP:ALLCAPS, then we have to give them leeway to get it right or wrong, as best they can. We DO NOT leap on them and accuse them of being bad faith socks, troll and Luke-taunters. Even if they are, we have a strong policy that we act to editors as being genuine, until it's demonstrated beyond doubt that they aren't. Yes, this lets us be exploited by the real trolls from time to time. It's also overall a key means for us to improve access for genuine new editors (which I still do believe Jaggee to be).

Jaggee: please find some motor-racing articles to work on that are some distance from Luke. I'm sure this will improve the editing experience for both of you.

Luke: please lay off Jaggee and act as if they're genuine. I can't ask you to believe this, but please act towards them as you would towards any GF editor. If they're not, lots of other people will spot it as well, so don't worry about it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I refuse to act like I'm blind, deaf and dumb; which is how I would have to act to assume Jaggee was new. Everything they have done screams of a returning editor, and things well beyond your own involvement have furthered that case. Don't forget that other users have expressed their own doubts, or, in the case of User:Beyond My Ken, completely agreeing with my analysis of the situation. If Jaggee is a new editor, then I'm Bill Clinton. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, yes, I am the one being hounded. Everywhere they've visited has been either somewhere I've already contributed in, or something directly related to something I've been involved in. I haven't followed them anywhere. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, you are essentially asking for the same thing I'm proposing here. That initial ANI thread, pshaw, not the biggest deal. It's the rest of it, the recent edits, that brought me here. If it hadn't been for those Luke wouldn't have had any reason to say anything but as it is, I think they are right to feel as if someone is breathing down their neck. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided account of my, so far, short career as a registered Misplaced Pages editor.

On my first day, I spotted a potential copyright policy violation in Allard J2X-C. My first edit, a nervous and hesitant attempt, to alert those responsible to what I thought was a serious problem in that article, was totally reverted - as "Unconstructive and unhelpful."! Determined to right the wrong, and after reading through numerous paragraphs of dense policy text, I stumbled across the suggestion that, if the "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted", as was clearly the case here, the contributor should be "reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard" - which was exactly what I therefore did - with my second edit.

One well informed administrator, ignoring the pleas from those ignorant of copyright principles and without even a working knowledge of the applicable Misplaced Pages policy, did take the initiative - and swiftly purged the article of the dodgy material, thus vindicating my action. Note that Lukeno94 continued his fight to keep it though.

What followed was an astonishing series of personal attacks against me, including a tirade of irreverent bile peppered with puerile profanities from Lukeno94. I won't quote them here, but here are links to a few of them: , , , .

Upon viewing further results of a search of links to mulsannescorner.com, I came across discussions about another articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 and ) which also involved Lukeno94. Having seen the comments about the ureliability of the website, I added it to this discussion. That addition was swiftly pounced on and bad-mindely removed by Lukeno94. I added it back the next day, convinced I was right, but was again swiftly reverted by Lukeno94 (note the inflammatory summary). Another editor restored my point, vindicating my action.

Lukeno94 seems to be paranoid that I am "hounding" him. I AM NOT, I don't know (or care to know) him from Adam. What I am doing is highlighting poor use of poor references, nothing more. And I am beginning to regret signing up now. But this storm in a tea cup has aroused suspicions of cover-ups and back-scratching too, and I am not going to be intimidated it. Lukeno94 seems to be here to boost his ego, not to create great, policy compliant, articles, and I think he needs a serious slap on the wrist for reacting so badly when his infallibility is challenged. Jaggee (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you stay away from each other, and agree to report any issues like the previous copyright issue to an uninvolved administrator, we can put this to bed pretty quickly. Nick (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My only interest, so far, is the use of the mulsannescorner.com website as a reference, whether Lukeno is involved with it, or not. Jaggee (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'll happily contribute via an intermediary - if you can name one or tell me where to find one. Jaggee (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, if I have to put together a comprehensive report of how you are clearly a returning user here just to abuse me, then I will do so. Until then, you can drop the lies like the one about how you came across the DYK nomination; you didn't edit for four days, and yet magically cropped up again to appear there. Just like you've lied to several admins; claiming you want no further part in this and would disengage. If you want me to take you apart piece by piece, then I can put together a case that will make it obvious that you are not legitimate. I have an idea of a couple of people who you could be, but that doesn't actually matter. I never claimed to be infallible; in fact, at the very beginning, I stated that had you actually come to talk to me with the issue, then there would've been no problem. Instead, you didn't, and you've made it ever more apparent that your claim to be a new user is a flat-out lie. And I'm not even the one who initially used the term "hounding". "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted" is a flat out lie as well; I received no warning, and in no way can a template in an article count as a warning; but then you know that already. Just one more example of your lies. I've made thousands of good contributions here; you can justifiably claim one, so who is the egotistical one, acting as if they know better than everyone else? Is it myself, who has admitted to mistakes, or is it the "new" user who acts like they know policy inside-out and has only ever edited in things involving me? I wonder.
• And claiming that to be your only interest is a lie. Claiming that I have some involvement in the website is beyond a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than additional unnecessary, and to be ignored, intimidation. And no, you can't convince us that I am accusing you of being involved with that website, just of being involved with some of the articles that have used it. Calm down - stand back and look at look at my modest contributions again - then review your (over)reactions. Perhaps you do need a break from this. Jaggee (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think both of you need to stay away from each other as much as possible. While Luke is obviously frustrated by the fact that Jaggee, currently a single-purpose account, is stalking him (which can be verified by a quick look at the latter's contribs), Luke has also been rough towards Jaggee as evidenced by his comments regarding the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy for that to happen (particularly when I'm not dangerously overtired, like I was yesterday). I have no problem with genuine editors bringing up issues in things I've done; but I strongly object to this SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: - either disengage and edit in other areas, or you will be blocked as a disruptive single purpose account. Your smug, patronising tone towards Luke is not welcome here and is unnecessary. I'd suggest giving you a week to demonstrate you're happy to edit constructively without following Luke around or editing the same content (although I'm going to stop short of a full topic ban since we don't really know your editing interests). If we don't see any evidence you're capable of normal editing, I'd propose we indefinitely block your account.

The issue you raised has been dealt with and resolved, administrators are aware of what has happened and Luke will undoubtedly take more care in future not to link to a potential copyright violating content, so there's no need for further action. If you do have any other issues you wish to report in connection with Luke, I'm happy to handle them as an uninvolved administrator. Nick (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like nothing more than gratuitous victim blaming. This is not a "single purpose account", in your sense anyway. This is an account that, after spotting, and reporting, a violation, has been blamed, victimised, vilified and dragged through the streets. And for those reasons alone, I have not had a chance to spread my wings, yet, and now you seem to be seriously suggesting they be clipped, and an artificial restriction applied, because another editor cannot control his own temper and behave civilly towards someone who has criticised his work here.

Btw, thanks for the offer to handle the issues with Lukeno - perhaps you will look at the other unresolved issues that I have already raised. Jaggee (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• We've had plenty of people contribute here saying that Jaggee should disengage from me; can someone wrap this up with some kind of binding solution? I really don't care if the ban is one way or two way; I just want to be able to contribute effectively in peace, or actually take a break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probable that Nick's warning above is about the best you're going to get at the moment - but you've now got an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on his editing, which should help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose interaction ban between Jaggee (talk · contribs) and Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) (listed alphabetically) to expire 30 days three months after imposition.

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Misplaced Pages, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• Support as proposer. As a general rule, I don't think ibans are the best tool in the wiki toolbox -- hence the suggested expiration date -- but I think one might be useful in this situation. NE Ent 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (amended 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
• Support interaction ban, but make it longer (probably three months initially, I wouldn't entirely be adverse to an indefinite one), and obviously clarify that this means Jaggee needs to not snoop around my edits and attempt to create more drama, not that it just means they cannot contact me, or directly edit an article/article's talk page that I have already edited, or have written. Obviously, the same would happen in reverse. Anything to remove potential loopholes that they could use to carry on the abuse that has genuinely been making my life a misery for the last few days, and has taken out all of the enjoyment I had editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Time period adjusted. Oppose any modification of standard iban terms. NE Ent 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few more have voted since the 3-fold increase, so "adjusted" time again to the next order of magnitude - as there is very clearly an appetite for revenge here. Jaggee (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing any modification, I'm proposing a clarification. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as that would be pandering to the wish of the bullies. I found fault, and am being vilified as a direct result. The main aggressor here would, in effect, be protected against further similar, vindicated, scrutiny. Jaggee (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You found one thing that was a grey area, and have hounded me ever since, trying to make out as if I am the biggest sinner on the planet/project. And that's disregarding anything regarding the true nature of your identity. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's bollocks, and you know it. Shame on you for behaving so sanctimoniously and playing to the gallery the way that you are. Jaggee (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what else have you done? Pointed out that someone else was unsure about the reliability of a source, which was something I was already aware of, and that source is on a list of reliable sources for the Motorsport WikiProject? Those are literally the only two things you have done, that aren't purely hounding me. That's not "playing to the gallery", that's the facts, sunshine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not what else I have done - it's that I have not done most of what you claim I've done. Yet many here seen prepared to swallow your apparently intentionally misleading account without question. And it is the clear clamour for blood here that you are playing to, with your ever more deceitful contributions. Jaggee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Supprt - speaking as someone who a few days ago told them to find separate corners of this very large website in which to edit. LadyofShalott 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - @Luke: I believe the standard interpretation of an interactive ban will cover your concerns. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jaggee is clearly the aggressor in this case; Luke's frustration and occasional bluntness is understandable. Jaggee's combative refusal to accept any fault at all - his recent changes to his user page make clear that he thinks he is being baited and bullied by the community - are a bit much even for a new user. The community ought to think about penalties should the interaction ban be violated, as a deterrent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I still see this as just as much about bullying by Luke as I do about any hounding by Jaggee. If such an interaction ban were introduced, then it would first of all exclude Jaggee from motorsport, an area that's obviously of great interest to both of them. That's an excessive restriction on such a flimsy accusation. Secondly, I just don't trust Luke to act with a reasonable collegiate approach to Jaggee under such a restriction. It's all too easy for such a ban to be used as a very one-sided future excuse to drag Jaggee back to ANI on the slightest pretext, blowing that up into "Already banned user disrespected the state of WP by abusing his ban conditions", the crime of lèse majesté that is one of the few things WP ever does act upon. Such an action is unlikely to work against an established editor like Luke, but it's a very common way for new editors to be driven off the project. Just look at Spmdr (talk · contribs) who was hounded off for disagreeing with Luke over the Sunbeam Tiger article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn, change the record. No-one was hounded off at the Sunbeam Tiger article, and I wasn't the only one being highly sceptical of the claims made by this user. In fact, I wasn't even doing any hounding at all, so you can cut that bullshit claim out right now; most of my comments were made to you, and I reverted a grand total of once. Thanks for reminding me exactly why you're holding a grudge against me, though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• And I am so guilty of hounding Spmdr that my name appears a grand total of 0 times on their talk page, whilst the other editor disputing their sources, and who was rather more active in reverting their edits, has 10 mentions (including one comment by Eric). So you're as bad as telling the truth as Jaggee is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would not exclude Jaggee from any topic area. As there seems to be a misunderstanding of the terms of a iban, I've copy-pasted the applicable text from the policy to the top of the thread. NE Ent 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, as the wording stands, it would still allow Jaggee to come and manipulate articles I have written, and I would then be unable to remove the changes if they were detrimental (like adding in maintenance tags that have been resolved - I couldn't remove those, and would have to get a third-party involved), and this would worsen the existing situation, in some ways. This is why the user should be restricted from editing any article (but be free to edit the talk page) which I've had a heavy involvement in, and the reverse would be true as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• As is often the case, the "letter of the law" hasn't quite caught up to actual practice. There have been several instances where an editor has followed another editor's contributions to various articles where the first editor had never worked before, and, without actually deleting or changing the second editor's contributions, has edited the article. This behavior has then been found to be a violation of the IBAN, as an indirect form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. It's like having a 150-foot order of protection, and the person shows up and stands exactly 151 feet away over and over again. It's not a violation of the order, and it may not be something that the law can deal with easily, but we're not a legal system and we can make - and have made - the determination that such behavior is a violation of the purpose of the ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that'll do then. I would also like Andy to stop spreading lies, but that's his prerogative for now - at least I've stated the truth in public about that situation (it's a long-term grudge that he seems to hold). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke, please back off. I don't think your continued comments are helping any of this either. LadyofShalott 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He has reverted to type. Anyone who takes the trouble to look-up the history to this case against me will see that his belligerent response to my naive first edit was the root cause of all this. He came over all indignant since, but it was all a front I'm sure. He is not able to handle criticism civilly and is thus not cut-out for this type of work where close cooperation is necessary. Jaggee (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaggee. Seriously, you thought that was an invitation to get in another dig? Both. Of. You. Need. To. Stop. Acting. Like. Children. LadyofShalott 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is less than I proposed, I guess, but I will support this at a minimum. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like there's consensus for this, can we have this wrapped up please? (at the very least, this post will stop it from archiving) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. The vote for a 30-day/3-month penalty might have achieved majority support, but there is no consensus at all that the offence itself had actually been committed. I explained the course of events that led to me visiting the pages in question, and haven't seen any evidence or argument, let alone consensus to support the alternative (paranoid) interpretation of Wikihounding. Without an offence having been committed it is absurd to suggest that any penalty, even if it have 100% support, should be applied. Jaggee (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ^^ A response like that is a fairly good sign of why these sanctions are called for. A textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT if I ever did see one. I second the motion for a swift close and imposition of the community sanctions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• So where is all this "hounding"? Rather than "not getting it", this still looks more like paranoia by Luke. We should not go this far, on this little evidence, for so new an editor. All I've seen so far is some clumsy handling of what was actually a valid IP rights issue, and not even one directed particularly at Luke. That's square in the middle of AGF.

The worst I've seen from Jaggee so far was his comment just above, as noted by LadyofShalott (and I agree completely with her comment). However even that is still a long way short of iBan-worthy hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why you !voted against the proposal. However, the clear consensus among the entirety of the !voters was to put the IBAN into effect. Jaggee (and you) can certainly argue that that consensus is not justified, but what Jaggee did was to deny there was a consensus at all, and that is simply patently false. There is a clear consensus, and an uninvolved admin should really close the thread and put the IBAN into effect, since there's been no additional !voting for a while now, just repeat commentary from the same people. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see a majority call for the iBan, but I still don't see consensus that Jaggee committed substantial hounding to justify it. Where is it? His edit history is still tiny overall. Overall, this looks unedifying like a bandwagon of "Just block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" and we're supposed to be better than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only "consensus" to be found is about whether to impose on IBAN or not. That clearly exists. I'm not sure why you're looking for a consensus about underlying issues when the discussion (in this section) wasn't focused on that. This is not an ArbCom case, where every action needs to have a finding behind it, this is a community discussion, a much less rigid process, on whether an IBAN will benefit the project. Clearly they found that. The reasons for people !voting the way they did may well be varied (Bill may think it's because Jaggee has misbehaved, Hattie because Luke has misbehaved, and Xander because both have misbehaved), but there is no requirement that there be a consensus on the reason for the IBAN, just consensus that the IBAN would be helpful. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• A vote for a ban for a ban's sake - despite there being no evidence of any wrongdoing - is that what you mean? Jaggee (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I should note that Jaggee is once again trying to stir up controversy where there is none, by deliberately misrepresenting things and not doing any proper checking, on the Lavaggi LS1 talk page. Yet more evidence for why this user needs to be prohibited from interfering with me; this time there wasn't any case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recognise your description of my contributions as all I have done recently is ask for clarification of unsourced engine information on the talkpage of a racing car article - here. I think you are misrepresenting me - again, and I wish I knew why. Jaggee (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• You did not ask for clarification; you claimed that sources were "conflicting" with information on the article. One bit was already sourced elsewhere, which you completely ignored, and the other bit was easily verifiable had you done a Google search; policy is that something must be verifiable, not necessarily verified, and this was EASILY verifiable. A constructive user, if they were that upset about one missing reference, would've done research to see if what was in the article was accurate, and added in a reference. You did not do that, and you made a false claim or two in the process. Yey for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• There you go again - I made NO false claims. I suppose you are banking on some of the huge quantities of mud you are throwing sticking. Why are you acting like this - do you behave this way with all new users? It's like a trial by fire. Jaggee (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• "There seems to be conflicting information in the article and sources about the engines used." Verbatim quote of what you wrote, which is clearly incorrect. One of the engines was already directly cited in the infobox, the other was cited to a ref that was a little vaguer, but was not "conflicting"; the only LMP1 engine AER built at this time was the P32 (although I have found that some of our articles are giving the wrong versions of that engine). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• And there is still not a single edit from this user that hasn't been directly linked to the "dispute" involving me either... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, support, as the bulk of Jaggee's edits are related to Lukeno94's edits. The WikiStalk report shows six unique pages where these users' edits overlap. Interestingly, Jaggee only has edited eight unique pages since registration. The only non-overlaps where Jaggee has edited are at User:Jaggee and Talk:Lavaggi LS1. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, perhaps there's something wrong with the WikiStalk tool because it shows similar results for me in relation to you too. I think it shows stronger evidence that Lukeno is stalking me anyway, because on 4 of the 6 pages you mention, his edits followed mine, rather than mine his. Or perhaps it's the interpretation of the results that is faulty. Jaggee (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: It isn't a one-way interaction ban. It will prevent Luke from commenting about you or talking/interacting with you, as well. Anyway, now that I see the WikiStalk report between you and me, I also see that you've made some edits to other pages recently. Epicgenius (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, how can you remotely claim that I am stalking you? You've edited Allard J2X-C, Talk:Allard J2X-C, Talk:Lavaggi LS1 - all pages I wrote, or the talk page of pages I wrote, and are therefore on my watchlist, you've edited ANI/RSN threads where I've already been involved one way or another (I posted before you in the RSN thread), and I first edited User:Drmies' talkpage on the 5th of May, 2013, as you can see from ; a page I have edited 32 times, so I guess we can clearly see your bullshit lies for exactly what they are, and as further proof that you are WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than hound me, troll me, and misrepresent/flat out lie about anything I'm involved in. Absolutely ludicrous claims from you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• And beyond that, you've edited User:Yngvadottir's talk page, directly in regards to this "issue", you've edited User:Beyond My Ken's talk page with regards to comments he made about this issue, and you've edited your own User and talk page; using the User page either as a platform for your lies, or as trolling - and that's been pointed out by various editors in this thread alone, so hardly evidence of me doing any "stalking". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I would encourage those interested to take a look at recent edits around Talk:Lavaggi LS1. I see Luke's attitude there as far from the ideal, yet it's being reported here as if Jaggee was the one entirely at fault.

I'd also note that we're talking about a new editor with edits to only two articles: maybe they're both created by Luke, but then someone had to create them. All I see here is two editors with a common interest in motorsport, not evidence of stalking or hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• We're not talking about a new editor, we're talking about a new account, and that is obvious to most people other than you, it seems. My attitude may be "far from the ideal", but you try having a brand-new account following you around and flat-out lying about multiple things. I cannot fathom how you are still able to defend an account whose entire purpose so far has been to shit-stir on things I have been involved in; there are literally no edits from this user that are not directly attributable to either the Allard J2X-C "debate", or the Lavaggi LS1 "debate", and that is not paranoia, that is an unavoidable truth based solely on their editing history. Unless this user is you, I strongly encourage you to actually look properly, and not let your dislike of me blind you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• "how you are still able to defend an account" - AGF.

This blew up out of nothing. An editor/account appeared and made a reasonable series of edits (maybe not correct, but reasonable) that you objected to. Much ink was wasted on various talk pages. When they moved to another article and raised similar issues (again, maybe not correct, but reasonable), you objected to them again. I think you're being paranoid, and seeing socks under the bed.

I agree, the shit-stirring since is concerning. Whether this is an editor who's actually interested in the project, or who just likes farming the old drama llamas, isn't clear. Best thing Jaggee could do right now would be to do some valuable expansion work on a motor racing article that is a long way from you. I'd still prefer to see a voluntary distancing rather than a formal iBan. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:Assume good faith is not a suicide pact - and any AGF that could potentially have been there at the start should be well out of the window now, in the face of incontrovertible evidence. I would happily keep my distance voluntarily, but that is impossible when Jaggee comes after me, which is what it has been consistently. Note how that for the four days that I didn't edit, Jaggee didn't either, and yet they returned the same day I did. In line with their general actions, that isn't coincidence; those were four days in which they could've easily destroyed any of my claims of them being an SPA by editing something that I hadn't. They did not do that, and still haven't done so... (and by now, it is probably too late to make the "look, I can edit elsewhere, I was legit all along" claim) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Luke does have somewhat of an attitude problem, but in his defence, he is young. Once he enters his twenties and gains some more maturity, he will likely become less brash and arrogant. As for Jaggee, he is new here, and AGF should come into play. A community enforced interaction ban is hardly fair to a new user whole really only needs some guidance and a little more seasoning. They should be asked to voluntarily avoid each other. Failing that, a strong suggestion that Jaggee read, or re-read the policies here would seem in order, along with a warning to Luke to cool it. - WOLFchild 06:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee has been asked to voluntarily avoid me by several admins, as evidenced by the discussion above. They have failed to do so, by constantly wandering back into articles I've written, and therefore I am forced to respond. AGF might seem viable, until you look at the timing of the account's appearance, where and what it appeared in, and the fact that when I took a four-day break, they stopped editing altogether, only to return on the same day I did. Assume good faith is not a suicide pact, and there is simply no explanation for the account's actions than that it belongs to someone with a grudge, who created the account to hound me - as I said, the timing of its creation, the fact it hasn't edited anything that isn't to do with me, and the fact that it didn't edit for the same period that I didn't. As someone who has never had any sanctions of any kind, I didn't take the request to sort out an interaction ban lightly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Yambaram:Incivility, slurs and accusations of antisemitism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In this presentation for the deletion of an article, User:Yambaram has made a very serious attack on my work, and bona fides by presenting a slur. I notified him and the page that he was mistaken in these assertions, and had engaged in a WP:AGF violation. He has not changed his text, (though from his subsequent edit to the page, he has read my protest) or provided evidence for these absurd claims, so I presume he sticks by the smear.

I have notified him of my complaint here, on his talk page.

The slur runs that I am 'spread(ing) this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews"). In addition Yambaram insinuates that I am promoting on[REDACTED] a theory,' a theory 'often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes.'

He provided no diff for the first generalization.

The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia.

I would like an administrator to intervene and ask him either to prove his assertions (in which case he should take me to AE) or strike them out.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call this the damning evidence that Yambaram claims it is. It can be interpreted the way Yambaram has, but it certainly doesn't look too terrible to the uneducated eye. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not evidence for anything except the fact that demographics is a notable issue in arguments about origins in the I/P area, and cannot be interpreted as Yambaram does except with malice. I've been on[REDACTED] for 8 years, and have generally ignored the frequent attempts to get me off one area of it by people who play the 'antisemitic' card as if that trumped all argument. It is as vile a practice as antisemitism itself, poisoning the well by smearing editors simply from dislike of their inability to share a POV (which they take to be a failure to observe WP:NPOV). It should not be tolerated anymore than we should tolerate the usual racist zanies round here. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You complained about accusations of racism, then accused others of being racist. Howunusual (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Previous topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Correction: two previous topic bans.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#Nishidani

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the point, except as an implication of the type de te fabula narratur'. My occasional errors for 1R infractionsa year or so ago surely have no bearing on my complaint about Yambaram. One AE case does. I was accused, precisely, of antisemitism not too long ago, and the plaintiff, after close scrutinty, had his complain boomerang and was sanctioned severely. The last time this antisemitic slur was thrown my way was here Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, Anon(Howunusual) please learn to construe English correctly. I didn't accuse 'others' of being racist (meaning my interlocutor). I compared intolerance for misusing labels like 'antisemitic' of editors to our healthy contempt for the many 'brief candles' who flicker into[REDACTED] with the usual racist cant, and are reflexively and justly banned. than is quite disjunctive, while correlative. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram's comment: Amazing, Nishdani, what you're doing is called hypocrisy - should I remind you of this edit where you blatantly accused me of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian?

First off, I have never accused anyone on Misplaced Pages of being an anti-Semite, for I naturally respect one's opinion and because I know what the consequences of such words would be. And thankfully, I haven't been accused of anything similar so far either, hopefully rightly so. You're clearly exploiting things I wrote.

To answer the points you raised (quote: "He provided no diff for the first generalization. The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia") -

It's true that the theory is often regarded as antisemitic, as is the fact that you're constantly working to expand it on various article on Misplaced Pages. However, I did not say that you're doing it intentionally for antisemitic purposes, and that's a huge difference. I'm concerned about the actual theory, not about what you think of it.

Secondly, no specific diffs are needed to prove my point, let me please quote what User:Tritomex said on in the deletion discussion of The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory article: "Nishidani is censoring all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.) He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People and Ashkenazi Jews".

Even Einstein was wrong a few times during his life, but every time a user criticizes you, he/she is always the one to blame... What an interesting phenomenon. -Yambaram (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, now you cite this diff for the assertion that I 'blatantly accused (you) of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian.' Well, the diff does not even mention you. It provides ample evidence that a government actively promotes editing[REDACTED] in conformity with its idea of what the truth is. I'm not surprised at this. Most governments manipulate or try to manipulate free media like wikipedia, suffice it to look at the Chinese wikipedia. I commented that this may account for why I have been the subject of so many attempts to have me permabanned in the I/P area. You have once more misused diffs which do not substantiate what you argue from them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. You wrote of an article I 'created' (actually half of it is what you composed):-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

I was raised on grammar, and am old(-fashioned) but I think the art of construing the obvious meaning of English sentences is not quite dead. I would appreciate any administrator commenting directly on this particular remark, in terms of its consonance with WP:AGF. To me it is not only defamatory, but much worse, false and undocumented, and requires attention. I don't mind the abuse. I do mind having my intentions misconstrued to create an impression I work with malice against one of the 5 pillars. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I was asked by Nishidani to show the list of his bias revisions regarding his removals of every source that challenge the so called Khazarian theory. He removed an academic article from the journal of Donetsk National university dealing with the biggest archeological excavation of Khazar sites. The article written by the director of the project, who details the findings of archeological excavations and challenge the base of Khazar theory. and The link of the article is here: despite the fact that other editors supported its inclusion , and no one beside him at that time gave any objection on talk page. He claimed that the view of Dr. Flyorov were fringe. Similarly, Nishidani removed an entire section dealing with the criticism of Khazar theory and again and when it was reinstalled he deleted it again, by moving to sub-page which he created, named and written unilaterally. This has been done contrary to opinion of 3 editors. He copied there both the text of Khazarian theory (created by himself) and the criticism, while he removed only the criticism from the article, keeping his text in both the article and the sub page. , This was all done without any consensus and as I showed by reverting 3 editors. Previously he removed an academic article written by famous Israeli historian Moshe Gil, which claims invalidity of Khazar theory. Among reasons for removal he stated that Prof. Gil was too old and that his views are fringe. Nishidani removed and replaced the entire genetic section, placing one study, the only study which gave some support to Khazar theory in at least 3 places of the Khazar article. Other studies (more than 20) which directly or indirectly are dealing with this question, and do oppose this theory, he summarized in 2 sentence. All but one genetic study were wiped out or summarized in 2 sentence with his own wording. He removed all criticism of Elhaik study which was widespread and came from scientific sources although it directly questioned the sources of his edits . The controversial book "The invention of Jewish people" by S.Sand was used as source for numerous historic claims, while he removed criticism of Sand, even those directly related to this question. Sand is being criticized by numerous historians for denying Jewish nationhood and origin. I removed a hexagonal star image from the article, as the capitation bellow did not match any source, and the image itself came from disputed source. Also the majority of editors on talk page, at that time, asked for the removal of this dubious image with the problematic capitation. Nishidani reverted me, leaving the source he added (K. A. Brook) and his own wording on capitation. I asked for direct quote for the capitation, as the source he gave claims that the hexagonal star was likely unrelated to Judaism and represent a pagan sun disc, however I was again reverted and the capitation written now by Nishadani tells now that the meaning of the symbol is uncertain.(sourced by Brook who claims that the symbol likely represents a Pagan sun disc. This creates an impression that this hexagonal star represents Jewsih symbol although the only source found regarding this image tells otherwise. and ,

He continually edited the Khazar theory, day by day and removed in same way all sources challenging it. Recently have revriten the entire article, removing all/most sources which challenge the historicity of so called Khazar Theory. . Nishidani removed the template challenging the accuracy and neutrality of his edits, while the discussion was ongoing, the same he use to do in other articles when the neutrality of his edits is questioned . He interrupts and censor my texts on talk pages and violates WP:CIVIL by replying me with "blah, blah, blah" use profane words including the F word in conversation with editors who do not share his opinion. He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" and openly promote his political views on talk page, namely that the State of Israel carries out apartheid in West Bank and Gaza or as he said "(Apartheid) tends to begin to work as the intrinsic tendency of policy, settlement and development in colonization of the West Bank".. He edited the Khazarian theory or as he called it (The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory) (as this theory does not even have scientifically established name and definition) in many other articles beyond the Khazars and the sub page he cretaed. This articles are Genetic Studies on Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of the Jewish people etc.--Tritomex (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The above spray shows a breathtaking unwillingness to read what Nishidani actually wrote, or is it an inability to read it? The claim He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" is extreme as it uses code words to suggest that a racist and anti-semitic line is being pushed. However, reading the diff shows nothing of the kind. Likewise, the comments on apartheid are much more nuanced than Tritomex seems able to discern, and are not a promotion of a political view. I checked some of the other links and while they will probably achieve their aim of smearing mud because others have little incentive to investigate, the links show a completely different picture from that imagined by Tritomex. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Nishidani wrote, In my family, we also have a genes that are Jewish markers, which however, since we have a fair understanding of logic, does not mean we 'originated in the Middle East',

There are no such thing as Jewish marker and Jewish genes.--Tritomex (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Nishidani than wrote: "What these geneticists keep doing to define the Jewish type is excluding the logical deduction one could equally make from the other 30-55/60% of the genome which hails from other lands."

Nowhere geneticist ever defined the "Jewish type" .--Tritomex (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds as if you agree with Nishidani who wrote "That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians as well who observe the methods of professional research in that discipline" (in this diff which you included above). Let me translate—Nishidani believes that the views of a geneticist (who is not also a historian) should be ignored in matters relating to history. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No I do not agree, while there is no such thing as Jewish types, marks and genes, and no geneticist ever claimed such thing, population genetics is a legitimate science and individual editors are not entitled to ignore or disrespect it as a science. Also, as Nishidani edited the Elhaik study about Khazar origin of Jews in many articles, I guess he have changed his mind on this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! Can I get someone to look at my complaint. What is happening here, derailing a legitimate request for supervision by shifting the goalposts and ignoring my evidence, is extraordinary. I registered a complaint, and there has been zero attention given it. Instead, a pseudo-AE list of factitious diffs, by several people, has been mugged up to argue I'm a lousy editor. Perhaps I am, but what has that got to do with the price of fish? All you are doing, Tritomex, is listing your grievances against me for insisting that wiki policies be scrupulously applied, esp. in controversial areas, so I won't reply to them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. Yambaram wrote:-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

These are serious accusations,-I am said to be using[REDACTED] to spread ideas, associated with antisemitism, that the majority of Jews are 'fake'. Yambaram himself should be called to account to justify them by evidence, translate them into a complaint about my behaviour at AE or to strike them out. Or is it now permitted to make outageous accusations and insinuations with impunity, under the benign eyes of administrative oversight?Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• agree with Johnuniq, basically. This old giezer Nishidani tries to maintain an article that is clearly notable in terms of WP:NOTABLITY, and whence he has the occasion to make a rare recourse to the drama boards, he gets double-reverse hoodwinked on a non-level playing field. One can only cringe an object to such highly partial and non-policy compliant moves to censure a proven editor. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't read all the responses above because I don't have the time for it at the moment (I will, though), but I still want to leave a comment now.

I'm shocked by the amount of evidence Tritomex just brought, and will look deeper into these diffs later. I really ask myself why there are a few editors here that completely ignore it, and I wonder why Nishidani never bothers to give detailed explanations for such edits. Nishidani, you and others from that old discussion know what you were implying in that edit of yours.

Also, you keep taking out of context that sentence I wrote which you repeatedly quote. Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I clearly see no direct accusation of antisemitism there. I'll say this again: The fact that you "promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic " and "spread this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews")", is not calling you an an antisemite, but saying that your edits are somewhat problematic. I don't care what your personal views are about anything, I care about views and edits found on Misplaced Pages that aren't neutral or are pov-pushing. And I'm not stupid, I know very well what Misplaced Pages doesn't allow saying, so please don't put words I never said into my mouth. -Yambaram (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex brought no evidence of anything disruptive. I can take that to pieces, bit by bit, easily, but would only repeat the extensive arguments on the talk page sections regarding each of his complaints. Click on any link and see how I examined in detail every item of his arguments on the talk page. He has yet to have written anything in Misplaced Pages that reaches even minimum standards for articles. I write them from top to bottom.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not being a native English speaker is about the only excuse you have, weak as it is, since the vast majority of native English speakers would take your words as an accusation of antisemitism. Now you try to rewrite the facts: you didn't just say that Nishidani promotes something incidentally, you said that he writes what he does "solely in an attempt" to promote it. It was an obvious and blatant attack on his motivation. Nobody is putting words in your mouth except yourself. Zero 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: you mention that the Israeli government is manipulating Misplaced Pages. I will appreciate it if you help me finding this task force. It may assist me in finding images and articles at I,D.f archive and other archives. It was rather difficult and lengthy process to receive the Kaukji armored vehicle with the famous emblem. Once I will have this task force address, Iguess it will cut short the beurocratic problem that I confront now. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As Zero notes, this is yet another attempt to derail my request for administrative review by distracting attention from Yambaram's remarks. Yambaram gave this link. Click on it. Then open the page and read the articles from the Israeli press. It is all calmly documented on my talk page.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add here that I have just noticed (on that notification thingamijig on my alk page which alerts one whenever one is mentioned somewhere) that above, several cases (Ronreisman, Ykantor, Pluto and Huldra) were being discussed when I raised this point. I know many think suspiciously, and in context, my complaint here might be taken as part of some tactical warfare in a long series. My record shows I have rarely, if ever, in 8 years, complained here or elsewhere. I don't know what credibility I have here, but I had to bookmark the A/I page which I don't follow, on making this complaint, and had no knowledge of the cases from that area immediately prior to my own.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And here we see another attempt to add noise so as to defect attention from the complaint. Zero 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were so many editors who would complain countless of times against Nishidani (which is not true), that would not make it acceptable that you claim he is an "antisemite". And for this, you should be sanctionned.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani continues with his violations of WP:CIVIL even here on this page by claiming about me "He has yet to have written anything in Misplaced Pages that reaches even minimum standards for articles." I ask for administrators to respond accordingly.--Tritomex (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators, please respond to this complaint. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. Zero 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Administrators, please respond to our and dozens of other complaints made by so many editors countless times against the users Nishidani and Zero0000. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. -Yambaram (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days, there is now perfect unanimity between plaintiff and accused, Yambaram, that the substance of his statement be examined. Yambaram has had 3 days to corroborate his charge with evidence. He has yet to provide one diff. The relevant historical background directly bearing on the charge was covered here, where the petitioner, User:No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions and here, where Yamabaram petitioned against me and stated I make racist comments. Respectively awaiting administrative review, or at least an administrative request that the first item on the agenda, Yambaram's accusations I am a racist and promote antisemitic views on wikipedia, be substantiated by highly specific diff evidence (not the spurious 'evidence' dismissed as vexatious baiting by reviewing admins), or struck out with an apology.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you bring me up, allow me to set the record straight. My AE complaint was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator who said he didn't bother looking into it. It hardly cleared you of wrongdoing. He assumed I was acting in bad faith (without evidence or a prior history of such actions, but that's another issue). And it's not a coincidence that you are the only editor who has been attracting these sort of complaints over and over for years. Perhaps an admin with some balls would take this opportunity to look into your behavior, but I doubt it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You appealed and that verdict that you made 'unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism' which ha(ve) the effect of harassment or gaming the system' was confirmed by 6 independent admins who turned your appeal down. You weren't acting in bad faith. But good faith, profound sincerity, is no guarantee of good or discriminating judgement: and unless Yambaram has better evidence than you produced, since he is making the same accusation in the wake of that precedent, he should apologize for what is a vile smear. I don't want a sanction. I wish to clear my name from this trolling habit of making repeatedly an association of my editing with antisemitism. If my attitude is 'antisemitic', then[REDACTED] should pass a rule disallowing any editor from using material written by any Israeli journalist, philosopher or social critic employed by Haaretz, which is roughly the Israeli version of the New York Times. I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor. Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—at WP:TPYES I find: "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." I don't think the following is atypical of your posts: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity. Myths also, but I know that they are lullabies for children, unless deconstructed to draw out their deeper truths, which are not ethnic, but existential. Think about it." In your above post you say "I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor." I am saying that I think you might try being more concise, in accordance with our Talk page guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You got the wrong editor. My first, second, and third formulations of my complaint were concise. They elicited Tritomex's noisy screed of indictment above.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—you aren't being clear in Talk page posts and then you are upset that you are misunderstood: "Antisemites define themselves by their hatred of Jews: Jews are not obliged to define themselves collectively by that hatred, as a collectivity defined by racial antipathy. To do so is to yield victory to the arseholes of history by ceding them a pivotal role in defining oneself".. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset if I am misunderstood. Most conversations I observe consist of a complicity of misprisions, and that is true of most wiki arbitration complaint threads. I was raised in a milieu where reading a book a day was not unusual,- one learnt to concentrate through long swathes of often difficult prose. But I know much of our late world restricts itself to twitter posts, and buzzes over sms and one line emails. Anything beyond that is regarding as 'boring'. To construe (a) the first clause alludes to Jean-Paul Sartre's thesis réflexions sur la question juive (Gallimard 1954). That is the only mystery in what is otherwise a perfectly clear example of summarizing a subject with an immense literature in two lines. If you can't understand it, either tell me what's difficult about a normal English sentence or just ignore this thread.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—you shouldn't be talking over anybody's head or you risk being misunderstood. Anything worth saying on a Misplaced Pages Talk page should be sayable in easy-to-understand terms. I think that colorful terms such as "lullabies for children" are not conducive to Talk page use, although there could be exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, 'lullabies for children' (as opposed to lullabies that enchant us even as adults, as Theodor Adorno wrote in a memorable passage, a recollection of which was in my mind when I wrote that sentence) is 'talking over everybody's head'? On wikipedia, no one is obliged to read anything, esp. anything I write in response to a query, on my talk page. My allusions aren't necessary for understand what I wrote. They are sizzling private mental props to stop me collapsing from the sheer tedium of argufying the obvious here. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice trick, and one you're quite adept at, but it won't work. The appeal was against a sanction, it did not deal with the original complaint. You behavior was not cleared. It was not even looked into. I'm not surprised you'd try to use this as some kind of get out of jail free card "precedent" though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Again WP:AGF. I am 'in gaol' trying to weasel out of a criminal conviction by using 'tricks'. As with Ankhmorpork's innuendo, the plaintiff is guilty, the accused the victim. You listed a series of diffs to show I was antisemitic. They were reviewed, and discussed, and the appeal was turned down. In layman's terms, your diffs did not signify to third parties what you thought they signified and your attempt to twist the evidence was sufficiently 'vexatious' for you to be told to not participate in AE cases.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering you helpfully posted a link to the AE case, anyone can read it and see the diffs were not reviewed (unless you call looking only at one of them and saying you don't see anything about the subject in the Misplaced Pages article about the topic a "review") nor discussed (only one admin commented once and then closed the report). And yes, we all know you're always the victim. I have a nice quote about that kind of thing on my user page. In layman's terms you got lucky and a fatigued admin who sees bad faith everywhere didn't bother to look into a report and closed it before other admins even participated.

I learned two things from this: 1. Misplaced Pages is not equipped or not interested in dealing with long term sophisticated harassers such as yourself, and 2. an organization that punishes members in good standing and with clean records for reporting harassment is one I don't want to be a member of.

Now, if you stop mentioning my name I'll go away again and you will be free to continue to POV push while bullying, harassing, and prodding those who disagree with you until they either leave or make a mistake you and your coiterie can exploit to get them removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, I'm afraid you lack basic reading abilities, because nowhere on Misplaced Pages did I call a user an "antisemite", as you claimed I did. Nishdani, so far every time a user has said something that's not supportive of your argument here, you quickly claimed they changed the topic (and a few other users as well. Reminds me of what you said here: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity"), making everything much harder to deal with.

I can apologize if you think that I directed a racist accusation against you, because that's how you interpreted it for yourself and I have no control over that. It's understandable. I find it important to note that Nishidani is not denying the fact that he has written extensively about this theory on Misplaced Pages, weather it's an antisemitic theory or not, and as Tritomex showed with all these diffs, in the process of doing that he clearly broke some of Misplaced Pages's policies. Anyway, if for some reason I'm found quilty of bad faith, then you(Nishidani) will obviously be sanctioned as well, but I'll still change the wording of that article's deletion proposal as you asked. -Yambaram (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

'Can' is a potential auxiliary, meaning it lies within your ability to apologize. While I appreciate the recognition that you might apologize, I would prefer that you actually go ahead and do so by retracting that insinuation, and this noisome, but necessary thread can be closed.

I am known for being a 'stickler for language'. The reparative edit you have now made simply drops my name and converts the text to the passive voice which, however, leaves the implication there that articles are being messed with by POV-pushing that is favourable to a fringe or antisemitic perspective. In rewriting,

The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes . . This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it.

you have retained the gravamen of a charge that is false on several counts.

• often is untrue. As I documented, the theory was, and still is, widely entertained by scholars of high notability who, for obvious reasons (Jewish/Israelis), cannot be dismissed as antisemitic.
• it isn't a widely spreading theory. In academic terms, it has almost been disowned, though some support of a version of it reemerges from time to time. It thrives if you like in the fringe lunatic world of web-raving anisemites, who, I expect are only read by other candidates for the loony bun. I have documented all of this on the relevant pages: most people who promote it yield red links if you try to wikify the references.
• I.e. in formulating this, the premise is that any form of denial, diffidence or scepticism concerning the claim Ashkenazi Jews all have a direct line of descent from Israelitic tribes effectively amounts to a kind of negationism of the fact that the majority of Jews (Ashkenazi) are Jews. I.e. your own view, since you wrote this terrible pastiche, is that Judaism is defined exclusively in ethnic terms. It isn't, as any source, take the Jewish Virtual Library for example, will tell you (Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more.) It's news to me that the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory promotes the view that 'Ashkenazi Jews' are 'false Jews'. Arthur Koestler, who popularized the inframural studies of scholars on the topic, advanced it in order to combat antisemitism, for, by denying one descent story, he thought he would take the wind out of the sails of antisemitic racists.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram, why don't you just say that you were wrong, that Nishidani is not creating articles solely s an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes or spreading this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") if that is what you believe ? If you don't believe Nishidani is doing that, say so. If you do believe that he is doing that you are accusing him of promoting anti-semitism. To a native English speaker what you wrote is about intent, the intent to promote and spread something "often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes". If I complained about someone writing Holocaust denial articles solely as an attempt to promote and spread this belief there is no ambiguity in the accusation. It's as clear as calling them a Holocaust denier. If other editors understood it that way it's not an assumption of bad faith or because they lack basic reading abilities, it's because that is what it means. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nishidani appears to be playing the "playing the antisemitism card" card. Discussion above indicates a long-lasting content disagreement and frivolous complaints to this forum should be discouraged. Observing that a theory is regarded as antisemitic is wholly different from claiming an editor is promoting antisemitism itself - for example, The Bell Curve was criticised as a racist work, yet, the article about it cannot be said to be racist. Moreover, I am sure Nishidani can appreciate that insinuating that an editor is a paid activist is as equally unhelpful as the alleged complaint. Nishidani should be reminded of WP:BOOMERANG. Ankh.Morpork 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Translation. Yambaram is within his rights to call an editor he dislikes a racist and an antisemite or antisemitism-pusher. Any response from the target of the slur is, on the other hand, a frivolous resort to "playing the antisemitism card". Heads you win, tails I lose. In that kind of bizarre logic, some editors have a unique privilege to abuse others, and any evidence used by the defence must be read as self-incriminating. This thread is getting pathological in its waywardness.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the questions about the nature of Khazar theory, its role in Antisemitism I suggest the following book Kizilov, Mikhail, and Diana Mikhaylova. “The Khazar Kaganate and the Khazars in European Nationalist Ideologies and Scholarship.” Archivum Eurasii Medii Aevi 2005 page 25 --Tritomex (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the section on this on the Khazar page, and am documenting the fact in greater detail on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry page. So why on earth is Nishidani the antisemite taking so much trouble to provide[REDACTED] with details of this obscure episode in antisemitism? Your insinuation is absurd.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Its clear that claiming a theory as antisemitic and claiming violations in editorial policy, does not equal claiming that an editor is himself an antisemite. Reading numerous other complaints involving violations from WP:CIVIL to WP: NPOV, its obvious that many editors have concerns about Nishidani behavior. Replying them with "blah, blah, blah" or calling them the worst editors unworthy of any edit, does not solve this concerns.--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Sean.hoyland I think I now understand the confusion over this issue better. When I wrote that this article is (and other ones) are attempts to spread this belief which is often regarded as antisemitic, I meant to this phenomenon in general and not in the sense that it's necessarily the result of "Nishidani's evil deeds". The word "solely" made it sound bad, sorry I said that. And what I said there is factually correct (perhaps I should've opened a separate case at here at WP:ANI) because Nishidani indeed writes a lot about this, but it does not mean I think he's doing it because he is an antisemite - give me a break! I wanted to raise concerns about this issue and my intentions were wrongly interpreted, and now everybody focuses a few words I said instead of other serious stuff unfortunately. No Sean.hoyland, not all editors "understood it that way". Nishidani, I must say it doesn't mean much if you also worked on the other viewpoints in the Khazars article which do not support theory of the Khazars' conversion to Judaism. Because by all means I (and other users who reverted you there) can't see how a neutral editor would do what Tritomex earlier described that you did: Inserted the hexagonal star which looks like the star of David, in that section of the Khazars article, while adding captions that do not much the original source (continuing Tritomex:) "which actually said that the star was likely unrelated to Judaism and represents a pagan sun disc... created an impression that this hexagonal star represents Jewsih symbol although the only source found regarding this image tells otherwise." Now you'll say that I don't assume good faith, but I indeed suspect, not accuse, that something is fishy, and hope admins will check this as well. -Yambaram (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you won't apologize and insist 'something is fishy'. All your 'evidence' refers to distorted rehashings of content disputes and have no place on this page.

I rewrote the Khazar article from top to bottom, most of it does not concern Jews, and dealt with all notable viewpoints pr WP:Undue according to the best academic RS. No one complaining here or there (you and Tritomex basically) has done any work, or made any edits except on this minor topic of antisemitism, and the 'disproof' of the theory: both of you wish to adduce every possible newspaper comment or negative opinion to show the theory is both untrue and antisemitic. Just as Tritomex inverted all normal wiki rules in his attempt to showcase an amateur's non-notable theory and sweep under the rug what the most authoritative scholar thought at Ophel inscription, where I had to rewrite the whole article to fix the POV pushing (this has proved impossible at Ashkenazi Jews, which is in a state of paralysis). In both instances WP:NPOV was ignored in order to push a position. We don't take sides here, and it is particularly disappointing to see editors looking at articles only in terms of one obsessive concern with one particular theme, and making out anyone who doesn't edit it according to their theories of how that theme must be handled in every article in[REDACTED] is therefore biased.

Anyone sufficiently masochistic to review what actually happened re the minute details of the seal discussion can wade their way through the relevant section, where I analysed the issue at exhaustive length to meet Tritomex's objections. Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrative oversight. No.4

Is it acceptable to state, suggest or make innuendos that an editor is antisemitic without providing any evidence for the claim, on wikipedia? Is it okay to allow such statements to be made, so that an editor must work under a trailing cloud of not infrequently vented 'suspicions'?

Yambaram, Tritomex, No More Mr Nice Guy, | AnkhMorpork variously argue my editing is 'problematic' and the suggestion is that there is an odour of antisemitism there, or that I edit material that antisemites use, ergo. . .'there is something fishy' about my work on wikipedia.

The brief answer to this is Chemi Shalev, 'A New York Times reporter in Israel is invariably called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew,' at Haaretz Jan 16, 2014, where a New York Times reporter Clyde Haberman reflects on his career and recounts that a middle-of-the-road, orthodox-raised reporter like himself who strives to be professionally even-handed (compare WP:NPOV) in reporting the I/P area is chronically afflicted by numerous accusations and tirades from their fellow co-religionists that he is being 'antisemitic'. The label 'antisemitic' by Haberman's own testimony is misused to put pressure on people like himself who strive for neutrality. Unless they espouse an identifiable line, they are 'Jewish self-haters' or antisemites.

In my view, over 8 years, antisemites or any other brand of racist should be banned on sight from editing wikipedia. By the same token heckling editors by making charges they are 'antisemites', a worn but almost reflex trick in the POV trade (Haberman), because you dislike their work, or views, is equally unacceptable, because it is very frequently wielded to put pressure on people. Editors found using this charge without any evidence for the smearing allegation should be warned, asked to strike their statements out, and apologize.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Poppycock. I didn't assert anything of the kind. I merely noted that observing that an academic theory is regarded as antisemitic, which Yambaram appears to have done, is wholly different from claiming that an article or editor is antisemitic. Your verbose posts would indicate that your view is certainly not being stifled and I would urge you to consider that just as as carelessly attaching the "antisemitic" label can pollute discussion, so too can the unfounded allegation that editors are maliciously doing so. Finally, could you address your own conduct and advise whether you consider your insinuation that yambaram is a paid activist acceptable, if not a tad hypocritical? Ankh.Morpork 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Every attempt I have made, now four times, to see direct administrative oversight of a remark, which not only myself but several others take to warrant scrutiny as potentially a serious slur and a challenge to the serenity of my work on[REDACTED] as an editor, is crowded out by a backwash of demands that I explain my general behaviour. Fine, I will, disposing even of your insinuating I insinuated Yambaram was a paid activist, (which is not what the diff says). But I will do so only after my complaint receives the requested attention. The logical order is Yambaram, what he said, and, if that is necessary, then Nishidani. I regard all attempts to provoke me into an unwarranted apologia pro vita mea as equivalent to an effective derailing of the issue I raised, and which I have a natural right to ask to be addressed. Administrative review is required for the simple reason that any outsider would tend to think that automatic sides have been taken by all those who have commented here: those who challenge my bona fides, here and in the past, have sided with Yambaram. Those who see merit in my request are editors who share my (not necessary correct) interpretation of WP:NPOV. Someone beyond suspicion and this fray is required to elide the appearance that judgements are partisan, someone unswayed by either side, who simply looks at the evidence and makes a judgement according to core policies, and the devil take the hindmost. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Small correction - those "who see merit in request" are your buddies who show up every time you're in trouble. It has nothing to do with your "interpretation of WP:NPOV". There's not a single editor in the bunch who's not familiar to anyone who's seen your multiple visits to the admin boards. Easy to prove with diffs, if anyone cares. Which at this point I doubt they do, so all we really get here is another view into your inflated sense of victimhood. Poor Nishidani only trying to uphold the rules with the support of a bunch of like minded strangers while a vast conspiracy insults him and tries to take him down. This would be funny if it didn't come at the expense of the integrity of the encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is of course (buddies,inflated sense of victimhood) a personal attack again, also on the bona fides of several other editors. All the diffs both Yambaram and yourselves like to raise are stale, underwent review, and were dismissed. My complaint deals with a comment made some days ago.

I guess I should note the following, which contextualizes the derailment underway, and the antipathy expressed.

• (1) since this , where User:Salvio giuliano summed up his review (without implementing it) that ‘AnkhMorpork, your editing has been tendentious, at times, in my opinion and, for that, I'm inclined to issue a rather long block, unless you accept an indefinite ban from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed, ’ User:AnkhMorpork has not edited wikipedia, except desultorily (32 edits) since January 2013 (contribs), one year ago, and only to make a few comments mainly where I appear, since this incident. The occasion for returning was to comment on my ‘character defects’,

‘You had this objectionable penchant of referencing what you imagined to be other editors' religion in your discussions, touting it as if it was a piece of incriminating evidence’

I think that means in his view any time I use the word Jewish I do so as ‘a piece of incriminating evidence’. If so, then I am antisemitic. This is the kind of attack I have raised an objection to here, though for several years I have mostly ignored it, as per my meagre complaint record (as opposed to the record of complaints laid against me). I should add that in that prior case User:Media-hound- thethird, eventually indefinitely blocked, was warned repeatedly for obstructionist comments that were interpreted as attempts to derail the complaint. I consider much of the interjective stuff in here as performing the same function, rehashed stale evidence, produced by non-active editors.

• (2) Since July 23, 2013 User: No More Mr Nice Guy, when he appeared to withdraw from[REDACTED] when his A/E complaint about me as a 'Jew baiter' was turned down, and his further request also turned down. and this complaint, almost a half a year passed (contribs). In that period he made 3 edits (here) (here) and (here) to his mainpage all finessing the point he wishes to make there (and perfectly within his rights to do so). It is what he believes.

I am not worried by these long-stewing animosities, but I choose to work wikipedia, I have made in 8 years just 2 complaints to administrative boards despite such animosity, and wish to work here, unlike, apparently, the two editors above, and to do so without the kind of fog of innuendo they, and Yambaram, blow my way. Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't bring up my name, I won't need to respond to your bullshit. Your complaint was open for days without me trying to "derail" it until you mentioned me. There's a lesson here.

I also wanted to work Misplaced Pages, I left because of harassment and the administration's lack of will to do anything about it.

Good example with Ankh up there, by the way. He was adding stuff from RS and got banned from articles relating to Muslims, while you can gratuitously say Purim is a celebration of genocide, a theme shared with the Nazis, and nobody cares.

Go ahead, whine some more about what a victim you are. Blow "the fog of innuendo" in other people's direction while complaining about what they say about you. It's not only transparent but also pathetic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'Whine' 'pathetic' , Nishidani's views are 'shared' by Nazis (ergo...) Your falsification of what I said re Purim is already in a link supplied here. Many eyes saw the evidence. Your distortion did not pass. So, please desist from flogging the dead horse of the past, and allow fresh eyes to look at fresh evidence. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The reply to the Nishidani shares Nazi views was just posted here. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As I never saw this and I cant believe what I am reading I am asking Nishidani if he is regretting saying that Purim is an attempted and successful genocide?

Also, I would like to hear explanation about this claim of Nishidani ":With that monicker, the Israeli planning stuff put over that their operation was 'the manifestation of the presence of the God of Israel in the Torah.' While bombing the Gazans into an Exodus, they used an idiom to apotheosize the divine light guiding their own paths into Eretz Yisrael. You really think that it acceptable to anyone who happens to be on the receiving end of this Nacht und Nebel smashing to smithereens? Who invents these names?. They are incredibly well thought out for a kind of resonance one only gets in close literary criticism of a classic. Cast Lead of course referred to Bialek's poem, and dreidels, as was appropriate since the massacre of Palestinians coincided with Israel's festival of light."

What is this?

Regarding the issue of hexaganoal star mentioned by Yambaram, the image from dubious source is still on the Khazars page sourced with only one source namely K.A: Brook. The source tells that the star is likely an Shaman sun disc and not a Jewish symbol while Nishidani capitations claims that the meaning of the symbol is unknown. Nishidani removed a direct quote from the author of the image.--Tritomex (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is disruptive because (a) You must not interrupt posts with bad formatting (b) The complaint made deals with Yambaram (c) The material you just added comes from past AE cases already amply discussed in context, dismissed and archived (d)Introducing extraneous material on content conflicts amounts to derailing the request for input specifically on Yambaram's remark (e) If any reviewing admin things anything else, including statements I made (even if everything cited above is 'technically' 'stale', and therefore not usable), requires a response from me, I will reply to them. So, please desist. Several editors have tried to disrupt my request, and persisting in this discourtesy constitutes a patent attempt at derailment.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nishidani, it's not as unfortunate that you expand this Khazar conversion topic extensively as it is that you have ignored Misplaced Pages's policies while doing so. I may never understand why you choose to focus your editing almost entirely on this (besides documenting alleged Israeli violations/attacks and the like on other articles), because it seemed that you'd oppose it at times.

Regarding all those links, you said above "Well, the diff does not even mention you. It provides ample evidence that a government actively promotes editing[REDACTED] in conformity with its idea of what the truth is", but looking at this earlier diff shows otherwise, as every 6 year old kid would understand that you were implying that I'm taking part in this activity described in that article. And as some user said before, this accusation is just as serious as what you're accusing me of, and personally it's also very insulting to falsely be called a propagandanist or shill. We both think we deserve an apology.

I'm not trying to change the topic, anyone can go back to it (if there is one) if they want, but it kind of saddens me we all got to this point. It's clear that many of the participants in this discussion haven't been innocent, at least not in someone else's view, whether because their "mistake" was done in bad faith or not. This is becoming an ineffective waste of time for us all, and less and less productive. -Yambaram (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said, when you reported me as a danger to[REDACTED] in October 2013, that you should be more worried by the kind of intrusiveness of[REDACTED] reported widely in Israeli newspapers as part of a settler and government programme to counter 'anti-Zionists' you replied:Where are these paid university workers? Misplaced Pages needs them urgently. If I were one of them, I'd do my job proudly. Well, sometimes I really wish I could get paid for my work here

You did not find the widely documented attempts to influence media like[REDACTED] problematical. You find me, and Zero, dangerous here. I never said you were part of this. But I am surprised that someone denouncing me as a threat to wikipedia's integrity as a neutral source, can then, volte face approve of organizations or governments openly saying they pay people to do just that.Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My views can hardly be described as "pro-Israeli" and I am probably much closer in mind to Nishidani than Yambaram, but this does seem disconcerting. Nishidani made a seemingly sarcastic comment about the considerable growth in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, casting doubt on the idea that the population's increase occurred without significant conversion efforts. At the same he seems to be editing strongly in favor of the Khazarian theory, which postulates that the Ashkenazi population is actually a large group of converts from a nation situated in the Caucasus who migrated to Western Europe. While the theory is not inherently anti-semitic, it is commonly used by anti-semites as a sort of excuse for throwing out anti-semitic comments. The Khazarian theory is, to my knowledge, considered a fringe view and a sort of pseudohistory not seriously backed by any historical or genetic research. If this represents Nishidani's actual view of the origins of Ashkenazi Jewry then even an explicit accusation of anti-semitism would not be excessive since the Khazar theory is often associated with anti-semitism, especially when it is invoked by someone who regularly makes provocative comments about Jews and Israel.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Jeezus, perhaps I should worry. I'm bewildered here. I am puzzled as to why while working hard on articles, anyone one writes on talk pages where edit problems are thrashed out, can be construed months down the track as malicious, or sarcastic or antisemitic. Well, I guess that happens once an A/I or AE case gets so much effluent opinion about a person's ostensible or suspected mindset, that everything looks 'fishy' or 'dangerous'. Take the diff you mention.

It's a complex argument, like those over the proportion of Ashkenazi Jews in modern Jewry, or the 'demographic miracle' that is required to explain how medieval Ashkenazi, apparently in the standard model without conversion, rose from 15-30,000 to several million in four or so centuries.

I wrote that after doing all the legwork on the Khazar article which has had endless commentary. The Khazar article was a complete fucking mess until I rewrote it from top to bottom. It's now close to GA.And over the two months or so I worked on it, all I got was whingeing from POV pushers with a bee in a bonnet about what is, see the page, a minor element of Khazar historical studies. I don't believe the fucking Khazar theory, anymore than I believe the standard Ashkenazi descent theory or any other theory that has no solid grounding in close detailed historical facts. No one complaining there made one useful factual, RS-based edit to that page that I can remember. They are obsessed with an implication that is fringe, as described as fringe. There are no facts there, only hypotheses. I've said this dozens times, but I'll be buggered if I have to waste more time linking to every time I've stated that. The phrase in question comes directly from several sources, which I have used on that and relevant articles. I.e.,

• 'Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century.' Gil Atzmon, Harry Ostrer et al http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/ Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry American Journal of Human Genetics. 2010 June 11; 86(6): 850–859.

• (2) Harry Ostrer, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, Oxford University Press 2012 p.153 (repeats what he wrote above)
• (3) 'Despite its stops and starts, the world's Ashkenazi population attained ten million by 1900. The geneticists who study the group often comment on its steep growth curve—they use the term demographic miracle.' Jeff Wheelwright The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess: Race, Religion, and DNA, WW Norton & Company, ‎2012 p.55
• (4) Jits van Straten The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled, De Gruyter ‎2011 actually has an article on this Straten, J. van and Snel, H. 2006, “The Jewish 'Demographic Miracle' in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Fact or Fiction?,’ in Historical Methods 39:123-131 Straten’s view is that the ‘economic miracle’ theory is a fiction. But read his chapter on it, esp pp.94ff.

I.e. you are reading into a remark where I am paraphrasing several sources, what I personally believe. Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really reading into that part of your remark, but the other parts of your remark and the general context in which it was made. Don't think I read into it anything that is not true of your beliefs either. Looking over your edits on this matter, it does appear that you have been generally even-handed in covering the issue. Perception of bias seems to be a result of singling out specific instances rather than looking at the edits as a whole.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The other remark is addressed to one of numerous editors who consistently pop up to push a thesis, amply covered in Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial and this section in Demographics of Palestine. One gets tired of being forced to revert SPI fringe theory pushers. The politics of it are well known. Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do actually look at the context of that remark you'll see that an editor said he wants to challenge something regarding the demographics of the Palestinian People on the relevant talk page, which doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with Ashkenazi Jews. Nishidani's response? Jews, his favorite topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

'Jews, his favorite topic'. I think that this accusation is classifiable under Projective identification or its congeners. You really should look at the contribs of all the editors joining you in being upset here, and then compare them to the list of my contributions at User:Nishidani. I appear to be the only editor with extensive, continuous and intense interests and detailed wiki work outside this hot-potato area.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Question for Nishidani: This tooll reveals that your "Frequently Edited Pages" include:

- Talk:Haj Amin al-Husseini

- Talk:Khazars

- Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

- Khazars

- Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

- Talk:Palestinian people

- Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

- Talk:Price tag policy

- Talk:Arab Liberation Army

- Talk:Hebron

- List of Israeli price tag attacks

- Juliano Mer-Khamis

- Talk:Jewish insurgency in Palestine

The bulk of your edits relate to the Israel-Palestine conflict and are frequently critical of Israel. Recently, you have taken great interest in gleefully promoting a contentious, fringe theory about the ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Though you have commented on Jewish matters before, notably the time you claimed that the Jewish festival of Purim was a celebration of a successful genocide, your newfound interest in Jewish genealogy is surely outside your usual bailiwick?Ankh.Morpork 00:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Correction: I incorrectly said "recently". It appears that Nishidani has been interested in promoting this theory for over a year as evidenced by his various edits to The Invention of the Jewish People.Ankh.Morpork 01:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani - Over the last year, I have received three notifications, and surprise surprise, you have been responsible for all of them. Quite simply, my "occasion for returning" is this: you uttered a falsehood about me so I returned to rebut it. Stop talking about me and you'll stop imagining these shadowy plots. Ankh.Morpork 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

+1. Don't talk shit about me, and I won't have to come here to set the record straight. This complaint was open for 3 days before I showed up due to being notified you mentioned me. Now you complain about a conspiracy to derail your righteous complaint by non-active editors? Add this to the list of things that would be funny if they weren't sad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'Plot'? 'Conspiracy'? (The subtext is obvious. Antisemites believe in a conspiracy) Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As do conspiracy theorists. Ankh.Morpork 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Nishidani victimized again by an "obvious" subtext. I suppose you were just trying to say it's all a coincidence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is being victimised by a subtext better or worse than being victimised by a meme?

Its enough to just check what sources Nishidani removed from Khazar article and what he adds there daily. He is quoting here Harry Osterer, whose conclusions was that genetic studies found no evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are linear descendants of Khazars. Nishidani removed exactly this claim, as he removed all other genetic studies directly or indirectly challenging the so called Khazar theory (more than 20) (summerizing them in 1 not 2 sentences as I claimed above by mistake) from that article, except one single, namely the Elhaik study which he edited in 3 different chapters in that article. He also edited this study in numerous other articles. Nishidani removed historic sources changing the Khazar theory, removed genetic sources challenging the Khazar theory. He removed archeological reliable sources challenging the Khazar theory, academic journals, newspapers and books. The result is obvious. Look just this- He placed the following claim ". Some archeological evidence from Čelarevo suggests the Qabars practiced Judaism since warrior graves with Jewish symbols were found there, including menorahs, shofars, etrogs, lulavs, candlesnuffers, ash collectors, inscriptions in Hebrew, and a six-pointed star identical to the Star of David." above the image of the hexagonal star which represents a Shaman Sun disc, although he removed the explanation of its meaning. Now this is in the Khazarts article (Qabars and Chelarevo in Serbia, and the Star of David above the hexagonal star image, all this in the articles about Khazars.) Also in front of the image (of hexagonal star (Shaman sun disc-identical to Star of David) whose meaning Nishidani censored, he wrote "One theory maintains that the Star of David, until then a decorative motif or magical emblem, began to assume its national value in late Jewish tradition from its earlier symbolic use in Menachem's crusade" Now what the Star of David (a Jewish symbol from only few hundreds of years ago) has to do with Khazars? The source does not even mention Khazars in the context of the Satr of David.When I asked per WP:V to clarify this edit, he threatened me with this noticeboard and gave the source in the form of following sentence from a book written in 1957. ," theretofore mainly a decorative motif or a magical emblem, began its career toward becoming the chief national-religious symbol of Judaism. Long used interchangeably with the pentagram or the "Seal of Solomon," it was attributed to David in mystic and ethical German writings from the thirteenth century on, and appeared on the Jewish flag in Prague in 1527. Thus were laid the foundations for its ultimate glorification in the nineteenth century." Based on this he pushed the Star of David in at least 3 places of the Khazars article. There are many similar edits.

Reading the comments of other editors I beleive Nishidani crossed all red lights, in the way of communication and insults directed to other editors, with his highly controversial remarks on Jews and with WP:NPOV violations for another administrative intervention.--Tritomex (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've all had your opportunity and are now repeating yourselves and vent historic grievances. Let someone with fresh eyes look at the original complaint, and raise directly with me any questions (as Devil's advocate did). Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

All editors who have expressed their views amply above, please abstain from the request hereon in. Thank you.

• I was reported, together with User:Zero0000 by User:Yambaram on 25 October 2013.

• He called me 'dangerous', stated my ‘personality, truly disgusts’ him, backed suggestions I used sockpuppets, and asserted I made racist comments.

I did not retaliate, though these are serious violations of WP:AGF. I thought stuff like this had ran its course after the prior case. Hyperbole tickles my funny bone. The case was dropped. A minor nuisance. He did add however the following statement:

I’m going to let as many people as possible know about the biased articles and editings that are taking place on Misplaced Pages by them. . . the least I can do, besides fighting over it, is inform people of the situation.

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it,'

(10 editors said the article should be kept. Only one, User:Tritomex sided with Yambaram. They cannot see what is being asserted everywhere here.)

I have a right to edit without the odour of suspicion hanging over me. Two assertions are made, very specific.

• I create articles to spread theories associated with anti-Semites
• I spread the belief that Ashkenazi Jews ae 'fake Jews' (this is repeated from the Oct 25, 2013 case)

None of the noise above, nor the diffs to material in prior cases, has provided any evidence for this. Yambaram has said he could apologize, but hasn't. He changed the accusation into the passive voice, but the implication remains on the record. To avoid repetitions of this rumour-mongering in future, since I’ve had it since User:Zeq started it in 2007, I request clarification on whether editors can proceed with impunity to make the kind of charge Yamabaram laid at my door, or whether such accusations require proof, on pain of severe sanctions, in the future.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans Adler and Circumcision

I discounted the votes by the two IPs, the conditional support by User:Flyer22, and the vote by User:Ubikwit, which I believe was the only one with no explanation whatsoever.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hans Adler has clearly stated his personal disgust with circumcision, and unfortunately his personal feelings interfere so much that his editing has become disruptive both at the article and in other areas regarding the topic. Hans has made his personal views on the subject will known, for example in his use of the article Talk page here plus other places. Hans has also used the article Talk page to engage in general commentary/soapboxing about the topic here. I am disappointed that an editor as established and as experienced as Hans would disregard WP:TPG like this.

A few days ago brand new Norwegian IP editor 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some pretty disgusting remarks at Talk:Circumcision, airing their personal views on the subject and included comments like "I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies" and "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." I left the IP a welcome message and explained my concerns at their User Talk. I then also started this ANI thread about the edits. As an outside administrator, Drmies handled the ANI, reviewed the edits and quickly blocked the IP for 31 hours, and later hatted the comments as "soapboxing/trolling" with an edit summary indicating he wouldn't even mind if someone deleted the comments altogether. Hans then undid the hat, edit summary "Totally inappropriate censorship of valid criticism of a biased article", restoring visibility of the offensive comments. Drmies redid the hat, Hans again undid the hat. Drmies approach Hans about this on his User Talk, expressing his disappointment, see the second half of the section here.

Hans was also involved in a series of back-and-forth reverts over the placement of an article-wide NPOV tag , which resulted in the article being full-protected for three days by John Reaves after my request at RFPP. There was a lot of discussion at the article Talk page and this WP:AN discussion over the placement of the tag, with no clear consensus in support of it. 20 hours after the full protection expired Hans re-added the tag, which then was removed, Hans added it back (edit summary "your blindness to your own bias is no justification to remove" is interesting), it was removed again and then Drmies ended up having to full-protect the article for a week to stop the disruption.

In that WP:AN discussion I mentioned Hans spent a lot of effort questioning my integrity: . I asked him on his User Talk if we could just stick to the article sources and content; in his response Hans appeared to decline, indicating to me that he would continue to attack me personally in his resopnses.

I've got to say even the Norwegian IP editor I mentioned above has done a much better job of keeping their own feelings in check and respecting Misplaced Pages's guidelines than Hans. While blocked, that IP editor made some interesting comments on their User Talk clearly expressing strongly-held personal feelings, see for example these comments they added in between my notes, and the status of the User Talk page here (quite visually striking actually!!). Yet even that editor has started to figure out Misplaced Pages's rules, deleting their soapbox-y commentary here after Yobol pointed out it wasn't appropriate. If this IP can do it, why can't Hans?

Hans' involvement has interfered with the discussion, which is often tense to start with, by using the Talk page inappropriately, casting personal aspersions against other editors, edit-warring with an admin to retain trolling comments and causing the article to get full-protected for a week, and disregarding WP:TPG with soapboxing, which sets a bad example.

I'm proposing an indefinite topic ban of Hans from the subject of circumcision until it can be demonstrated that Hans can edit in areas he feels strongly about without his feelings causing disruption. Zad68 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Norwegian IP's comments were targeted towards improvement of the article, if not in form then certainly in content. It is totally normal for a European to be outraged by the article in its current state. Circumcision is virtually non-existent in Scandinavia because it's considered weird and even for most medical indications there are better alternative treatments. Yet the circumcision article currently presents it as a rational practice that incidentally can also be performed for ritual or fashion reasons. And not a word about children's rights (or religious rights, for that matter). Let alone a big section, as exists in the German Misplaced Pages, for example. Of course people become angry when they realise this. The solution is not to block the angry editors, it's to fix the article. (But of course it can't be fixed because there is nothing on human rights in Pubmed.) Hans Adler 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue, there is no justification for "angry editing" of any kind. - WOLFchild 06:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Diffs seem to support some serious soapboxing.--v/r - TP 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support topic ban, but I don't know about indefinite. And frankly, Zad, I'm surprised you didn't mention any of the problems Hans caused on the article itself: . (Incidentally, I'm not too crazy about circumcision myself, but Hans' contributions appear to be a combination of WP:SOAP and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.) Erpert 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Erpert, good point about the missing diffs... I just don't like putting these ANI threads together, they take a long time. Sorry I missed those. As for whether it should be indef, I don't know how to come up with a specific time-frame in which it'd be reasonable to expect the issues would be resolved. Hans' editing has been very sporadic. I'd rather go by evidence of behavior. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess Zad68 knows better than to present my adding a perfectly valid POV tag to the article as me causing problems "on the article itself". Such statements tend to undermine one's credibility. Hans Adler 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Hans calls the ip out for their inappropriate statement "it was unwise in that it can be read as antisemitic", Zad copy pastes it here -- who's actually creating the drama? This whole mess has been pooched up from the get go -- an admin going 3rr on the NPOV tag in the first place, all sorts of ad homimem at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Circumcision and elsewhere. Obviously the tag should have remained in place since there was an ongoing discussion going on but the wrong version got protected with some awkwardly phrased statements. Now I guess we can't discuss this like mature adults because it involves peckers. No one seem to have a problem with calling female circumcision mutilation, but merely raising the term on the talk page is a cause for a ruckus?? As Mike Godwin said, The best answer for bad speech is more speech" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What we need is productive speech. There are plenty of editors at the article who share Hans' views. We need discussion like mature adults, just like you say, but the issue here is behavior, not the views themselves. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Productive speech; edit warring, page protection, ad hominem, hats, et. al. are not. NE Ent 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article so that the fiercely protected current over-emphasis of technical medical matters and American medical sources can be fixed, is disruptive. Whereas the definition of productive speech is that which does not endanger the status quo. Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest.

It's unfortunate, but that's just how Misplaced Pages works. Another aspect of Misplaced Pages is that this kind of discussion usually starts when Europeans are about to go to bed and Americans are beginning to get fully active. (It's past midnight where I am.) Hans Adler 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans states: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing -- I'm reading this as a plain statement of intent to continue disruptive behavior. I don't think this is sarcasm. Does anybody else read this differently? Zad68 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans is more mature than that. He is just making an observation about what it takes to push through a change in a difficult environment. The meek don't get heard. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An observation or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Not having any prior engagement with the dispute, when I attempted to get an answer out of ScienceApe about what reliable sources showed the POV issue, I got instead from Hans Adler the kind of response described by him above. Was he attempting to be heard, by not being meek? If so, all he did was convince me that the behavior on that article talk would be so contentious and difficult that engaging any further to try to understand what was happening in that article would not be productive. So, at minimum, the approach by ScienceApe and Hans Adler resulted in chasing off one medical editor who didn't whack her sons' willies at birth and was more than willing to hear what sources might need to be represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Not having any prior engagement with the dispute". I am not trying to contradict you, but it seems worthwhile to point out that you checked, and praised, the article's lopsided sourcing when Jmh649, the editor signing as "Doc James", was planning to pass it as a GA. And your response to my proposal to read three sources that would make it clear how biased the article is was amazing. You said that one source was in Dutch (which it isn't), and that the others are too long to read. Are you really so proud of your reaction that you feel you must draw attention to it by bringing up my response to your response? Hans Adler 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "not having any prior engagement with the dispute". My very limited review pre-GA was to confirm that the sources met MEDRS, and to say that there were some prose issues. At that time, I was aware of no dispute (in fact, I don't believe there was one). Subsequently, when the dispute showed up at the NPOV noticeboard, my attempts to get an answer on reliable sources at the noticeboard discussion were met with the attitude mentioned above. ScienceApe provided no sources, only charges of misconduct. You provided three sources that had all already been addressed or accounted for, none which explained the problem, and all were presented in a misleading fashion (perhaps not intentionally, but nonetheless). It was not a matter of "too long to read"; when you present sources about legislative proposals, the logical response is, "and what happened to those proposals", and the answers to that question were revealing.

In summary, as in many POV disputes, this one might be much easier dealt with by all with a) focus on sources, b) AGF, c) less attitude being thrown around that chases off anyone who might help. And although I've not engaged talk, in these discussions, I've only seen evidence of that attitude coming from about three people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, in only my second interaction with Hans Adler on the talk page, it produced what I would consider assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality as well as a bizarre analogy asserting decapitation is a medical procedure. This editor may not have the objectivity to neutrally edit this topic area. This topic area needs editors who will stick to sourcing and Misplaced Pages policy, not editors who soapbox or enable the trolling/soapboxing of others. Yobol (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Serious misrepresentation. Could you please stop it with the hyperbole and simplifications? Of course decapitation is not a medical procedure and I made it perfectly clear how my argument runs. ("I dispute that WP:MEDMOS fully applies to this article. In particular, circumcision is not just any surgical procedure but one that started as a ritual and still is performed most often as a ritual. The article decapitation is not structured according to MEDMOS, and neither should this one be, as the generic MEDMOS structure for surgical procedures marginalises some of the most important aspects. MEDMOS was not written with such a special case in mind." Later clarification: "Decapitation was just the first thing that came to my mind as a surgical procedure that one could but very obviously should not treat according to MEDMOS.")
  There was a problem on the talk page caused by your sloppy argumentation. You confused sources about economy that mention circumcision and sources on circumcision that mention economic aspects – two very different things for a weight discussion, which that was. And when the Norwegian IP reacted to what you said rather than what would have been reasonable to say, you went ballistic. Now you are doing a very similar simplification with the applicability of MEDMOS to the circumcision article. I am arguing that circumcision is a rich topic which one can't do justice with an overall article structure based on WP:MEDMOS#Surgeries and procedures. Instead of simply saying you disagree with that specific point and arguing for your position, you claim that I want MEDMOS not to apply to the article at all and that this breaks prior consensus. Very bad form.
  Your assessment of my actions seems to be clouded by your uneasiness at that interaction, for which I am not more to blame than you are. Hans Adler 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll let neutral editors read our interaction on the article talk page and come to their own conclusions. Your battleground mentality is unfortunately rather obvious. That you think I went "ballistic" anywhere in my interaction with the IP is, again, bizarre. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not bizarre, just wrong. I misremembered and at this time of night I didn't check before posting. There was, however, a miscommunication between you and the IP which I had to clear up. You said, whether you meant it or not, that economics deserves weight in the circumcision article merely because there are many publications discussing the economics of circumcision. This is what the IP questioned, and you lectured the IP ("No, that is precisely how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give a topic") instead of conceding his valid point and adjusting your argument.

After that event, I frankly consider it bizarre to be attacked here in this way. Hans Adler 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Noam Cohen (2007-08-20). "Defending Misplaced Pages's Impolite Side". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-20. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• I oppose a topic ban. I see nothing in Hans's rhetoric that should disqualify him from the debate. Obviously the neutrality of the article was being disputed, so the tag should have remained for the duration of the discussion. Circumcision is just as much a matter for philosophy, religion and the social sciences as it is for medicine, so please make plenty of room for notable perspectives from those domains. Hans could be more polite but there is bad form on all sides here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony the issue isn't the content but the behavior. I've dealt with lots of impolite behavior at the article, and usually a reminder or two of "please don't do that" gets things back on track. What Hans is doing is disruptive and he's promising more of it. He's actually making it harder to have a polite, rational, policy- and source-based discussion about the kinds of changes he'd like to see. Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I hatted those comments and blocked the IP; if I'm not mistaken they've come back with better manners. I did indeed "express disappointment" with Hans's behavior in relation to those disgusting, off-topic comments and the personal insults in them; Zad gave a nice and accurate plot summary. I'm fairly disgusted with being accused of "censorship" and of "hiding comments"--surely I don't have to explain here that such is utter bullshit and a rather low blow, or an attempt at a low blow.

  Having said all that, I don't see why Hans should be topic-banned here (with apologies to Zad); I do not believe that his behavior is so disruptive as to warrant a topic ban. For the record, I have an opinion here, and I'm probably aligned with Hans and the IP; when I protected the article, I protected what I consider to be the wrong version, since I believe the tag to be valid--not just because of possible bias, but also because I believe there are valid comments on the talk page about this bias (well said, Anthony, and I agree that there are bad manners on the other side as well). Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies so what do you suggest as the alterntive? Hans has been pointed to WP:TPG and the like and simply doesn't care. I've made an appeal to him to knock off the personal comments and he told me to expect more of the same. You, an outside admin sympathetic to Hans' views, intervened to remove some disgusting comments and he put them back. You removed them again and he put them back again. Right now the disgusting comments you described as "soapboxing/trolling" are still visible on the article Talk page. You had a personal conversation with Hans on his User Talk and basically gave up. If removing Hans from the topic area isn't what we should do, what should we do? Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know, Zad. Maybe some other admin is willing to hat the comments, for instance; I'm not going to do it again since I tried twice and I don't care to listen to more abuse from an adult who should know better. I have little interest in policing that talk page or the article--I'm sorry, but I'm of no use here. Still, I think it way too early for topic ban hammers. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have worked with Hans Adler on difficult and complex topics and I find him quite reasonable. His stance on this topic is strong but he is not deaf to high quality arguments. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like, "hatting is not censorhip"? :) Drmies (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies. The spat doesn't rise to the level of a ban. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Hans Adler is a welcome breath of fresh air on Misplaced Pages. While I do not always agree with him, I find his open minded approach and ability to look at both sides of a problem a valuable skill that most editors don't possess. Circumcision is a contentious and controversial topic area, and this dispute exists independently of Hans Adler's participation. Although I greatly respect the work that WikiProject Medicine has performed as volunteers, they have a tendency to don riot gear and wield truncheons whenever their "authoritay" is questioned. They also engage in tag team revert wars to silence their opponents. For this reason, I don't see Hans Adler as the problem, I see him as the victim. I have previously commented on the NPOV dispute touched upon in this thread, and I discovered that members of WikiProject Medicine were to blame for inflaming it. This transparent attempt to silence Hans is more of the same. Although I may not agree with the content of Hans' argument, I will stand beside him and protect his right to speak his mind. Because of militant groups like WikiProject Medicine, Misplaced Pages is entering a dangerous phase in its existence. We should all be concerned when editors espousing minority positions are facing blocks and bans for disagreeing with the majority. It's time to speak up. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per well documented soapboxing, battlegrounding, and general disruption in circumcision-related discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Mark Arsten. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see a pattern of disruption, merely a contnt dispute. Hans Adler has not been blocked for edit-warring, and editors on the other side of the issue have not taken the case to dispute resolution noticeboards. TFD (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that the recent issues started less than a week ago, and while I have extreme sympathy for those who try to maintain circumcision-related articles which anyone can and does edit, I nevertheless think that the standard responses should be adjusted when dealing with a highly experienced and rational editor such as Hans. Engaging with his arguments might be tedious, but a better article would follow. It easy for researchers to find evidence that supports their cultural norms, so I doubt that the article can be modified in a manner that suits Hans, but he should have every opportunity to express his concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support The disruption by Hans Adler on the Talk page and his edit warring in the article go back much farther in time than the recent examples presented by Zad68. This disruption did not start just yesterday. Adler consistently misrepresents sources, twists what editors say to put the worst imaginable spin on it, blatantly ignores Misplaced Pages rules (especially on Talk page discourse), barks orders at fellow editors, and is apparently unable to distinguish between his personal opinion and the picture presented by the preponderance of sources. He is a culture warrior. He burns with the conviction that circumcision is a moral outrage, a human rights violation, a horrible mutilation inflicted on defenseless babies. He is hell-bent on turning the en WP article into a counterpart of the German WP article on circumcision, which has long been an anti-circ propaganda piece and a horror show, complete with gruesome color photographs of (extremely rare) botched circumcisions out of all proportion to actual reality as well as cherry-picked primary sources and references to web pages from so-called intactivist sites. He needs to be excused from participation in this topic.89.204.155.132 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are? Have you ever been banned from that topic here or on de.Misplaced Pages? I've just read every Hans Adler post in that article's archive and, on balance, you are full of shit. Hans can be blunt. Get over it. He demonstrated in that archive that he can be persuaded by good argument. In the couple of threads I read in full (all sides) his reasoning was sound and he made more sense than his interlocutors. This is argument on a controversial, emotive topic. It is robust but, so far, not unhealthy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, never been banned from either article. I did manage, though, to get the German WP editors to remove one of the most bogus claims from their article, that of an estimated 117 deaths annually from circumcision in the United States alone. The rest of my well-founded criticism was ignored so I gave up. Adler claims to speak for all Europeans yet in his own country (Germany) the parliament passed a law a year ago explicitly legalizing non-therapeutic circumcision if the interests of the child are safeguarded (it had been implicitly legal for religiously based cases before) by a vote of 436 to 100.89.204.155.132 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP-hopping non-geolocatable Telefonica Germany customer with a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous. Just like the one who commented on my talk page yesterday. To quote him: "For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals". There may be some truth in that. His reaction to this was to propose on my talk page that the Norwegian IP needs "marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer". I thought this was a common troll, but apparently he is for real. Hans Adler 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans you describe the German IP as having "a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous" and "a common troll". And you have no such comments for the Norwegian IP, and actually revert to restore the visibility of their comments on the article Talk page? Doesn't this say something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area? Zad68 14:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. But if you really think that the Norwegian IP is as bad as the German IP, then this also says something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area. The German IP's comment on my past behaviour at Talk:Circumcision was way over the top, as anyone can verify by reading all my contributions there. I just did so, and I found nothing that is disruptive or of which I am ashamed. In fact, I would be pretty proud of my comments in those threads if they hadn't proved completely ineffective.

I also stand by this edit. As proved by the Norwegian IP's later behaviour, this was not trolling but genuine concern about the article's quality. It is normal for an unexperienced editor to innocently start criticism of an article in such a way. Hatting such comments, and even blocking the editor, tends to alienate a possible new co-worker and drive him away before he even had a chance to learn how the community works. The result is a systemic bias against those who disagree with the article. Hans Adler 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the diff you are proud of makes the comments "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." visible. It also adds a comment from you that includes "I actually agree that inflicting circumcision on a baby is not better than inducing a child to do a blowjob."

The change in the Norwegian IP's behavior was in spite of, and not because of, your actions. I told the IP on their User Talk that Misplaced Pages is not an Internet chat forum and the kinds of comments they were making weren't acceptable. The short block by Drmies indicated that we're serious. Subsequently when Yobol told the IP not to use the article Talk page for general comments, the IP complied. Your actions only encouraged the bad behavior: by validating it when you restored visibility of the comments (twice) and then by providing a bad role model by using the article Talk page to make the same kind out-of-scope (per WP:TPG) comments. Zad68 15:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. "stand by" ≠ "proud of". I am not proud of that diff, and I certainly wouldn't have done it just for the first paragraph. However, Drmies hatted the entire ensuing discussion as well. Hans Adler 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course: it's a package deal. I considered redacting, but that was a lot of comments to redact--and it's not just the Jewish doctor blowjob thing I'd redact, but some of the other stuff as well. So I chose to hat (or "censor", as you called it), yes, and there is no way to do a "partial" hatting in such a discussion without breaking up things. We are to keep talk page threads intact as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it seems much more selfish to induce a child to do a blowjob, but people might feel almost equally violated from having been mutilated as a child. Many genital mutilated women certainly feel extremely violated from the mutilation done to them, and of course this is much more serious than losing some foreskin. But I am also quite certain that many people feel quite violated from having lost their foreskin during childhood.84.210.13.40 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that this, when done for no valid reason, is worse than inducing a child to do a blowjob. (I don't like this formulation, but I guess as a non-native speaker I have no chance of coming up with one that is more appropriate in a child abuse context.) That's because I measure abuse primarily by its effect and only second by malicious intent. To have an idea of the effect, one needs to know how sensitive that region is, especially before sexual maturity. Just sliding back the foreskin already hurts like hell. And that's just the regular case which does not involve medical complications. The research that found occasional serious trauma lasting up to a year is perfectly plausible. Hans Adler 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, with my knowledge of the deep and long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse, I can't agree with your take on that as compared to circumcision. An adult who was sexually abused as a child (an adult who remembers that he or she was) is subject to all kinds of psychological problems; usually suffers from several or many of them. An adult male who had circumcision performed on him as a child usually accepts that he was circumcised and is usually not pained by the circumcision (physically or emotionally), especially considering that circumcision is generally a cultural way of life in such cases. Quite different than child sexual abuse; comparing these two topics is like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That could be the start of a reasonable argument if the specific kind of sexual abuse with which we are comparing circumcision here left similar verifiable marks on the child. It does not. Consequently, we cannot compare all children who were subjected to one of the two. We can only compare all children who were subjected to circumcision to those children who were subjected to this particular ("blowjob") form of sexual abuse (not all forms; you seem to be mixing that up as well, probably for practical reasons as it seems impossible to get separate numbers) Add to this the fact that parents who inflict circumcision on their children usually do so innocently, love their children and will be good parents, whereas other forms of child abuse are signs of deep personal troubles that will fuck up their children's lives in manifold ways, and you just can't compare the two in the way you propose.

Indeed, comparing apples and oranges if one tries to do it that way. However, I at least can follow the link I gave, listen to the child, and additionally think: "How would I have felt if someone had done that to me at age fourteen or so (the furthest I can think back)." It's about empathy with the victim. Then it is clear what the child's cries mean after the point where their quality changes: Utter horror at the torture he is being subjected to. Hans Adler 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to disagree on comparing these two topics; my reply to the IP below sums up the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That depends. In a country where most men are circumcised it is probably easier to accept it than in a country where most men aren't circumcised. Not all teenagers find it easy to have a dick that looks different. Later in life some people might also start wondering how it would be to have a foreskin, with little possibility of getting it back.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be devolving into a debate of personal opinion which is unhelpful and inappropriate. Please focus on the article, not your personal views on the subject. -- John Reaves 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, IP; it generally does not depend, which is exactly why you will not find any WP:Reliable sources reporting that males are generally pained by circumcision. By contrast, you will find an abundance of WP:Reliable sources reporting that adults who were sexually abused as children (ones who remember that they were, or even ones who've discovered that they were but don't remember it) are pained by it in one way or another. Notice that I used the words usually and generally with regard my post about the effects of male circumcision. I never stated that an adult male cannot be pained by knowledge that he was circumcised as a child. But either way, any psychological effects on that matter are far different and nowhere close to as vast as the psychological effects from child sexual abuse. I won't be debating this matter much further, if at all, seeing that there is hardly anything to debate on this apples-and-oranges comparison. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GAH! It's exactly this use of Misplaced Pages to air and debate our personal views regarding article topics that I started this ANI discussion in the first place. And look what part of the conversation is springing from: an airing of personal views by the Norwegian IP, followed by encouragement/enablement from Hans. Is this allowed now? Can I go to Talk:Jesus or Talk:Global warming or Talk:Abortion or even Talk:Beyoncé Knowles, start making comments like "<Article topic> is worse than forcing children to do blow jobs", and expect those comments to remain untouched? Zad68 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hans Adler's comment: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing encapsulates the problem, here. He has, as shown by the diffs, turned to soapboxing, edit warring, and battlegrounding in what he apparently views as a deeply moral issue to right great wrongs. Sorry, but that approach is directly contrary to purpose and process on this project, and Hans Adler is apparently blind to even the idea that reasonable people can reason together over the representation of reliable sources for this article -- no one is here to discuss Hans Adler's morals, but that is the unrelenting distraction and, yes, disruption, he apparently wishes to engage in. This is just not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Viriditas and others. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am not taking a vote, but aren't Hans Adler's comments and the IP editor's comments equally offensive? Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Epicgenius, you may want to clarify your comment, as there is a strongly anti-circumcision Norwegian IP and a strongly pro-circumcision German IP. Without guessing your position on the dispute, it's not clear which of the two you are referring to. Hans Adler 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · 84.210.13.40 WHOIS), the Norwegian one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose　--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why? Erpert 07:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If anything contributes to making[REDACTED] articles better it is negative feedback. Hans Adler has given the best negative feedback I have seen on the circumcision talk page. If[REDACTED] starts to ban all people giving negative feedback to their articles[REDACTED] will stagnate. It would serve[REDACTED] better to ban people like Doc James, because he always repeats the status quo and never says anything I find even remotely intelligent. Such people don't contribute to anything. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — 84.210.13.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Note: This is the Norwegian IP editor discussed before. Zad68 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ...adding: And thank you for removing at least the most offensive of the comments from the article Talk page. Zad68 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies and Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support if the WP:Soapboxing continues. I have seen Hans Adler make valid and/or good arguments on Misplaced Pages; the same goes for Zad68. Soapboxing, however, is not needed to make good or great arguments. And the type of soapboxing that Hans Adler was engaging in at the Circumcision article, or that Tumadoireacht still engages in at that article, detracts from any valid problem there may be with the article and contributes to animosity among the editors involved. Circumcision is a controversial topic enough as it is; all that loaded rhetoric doesn't make it any more controversial, but it does make participating in topics pertaining to it far more unpleasant. Our editors need a healthy working environment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm open to the idea that this is a user with some rough edges fighting against entrenched article ownership, if evidence is presented to that effect. But edit warring over hatting offensive trollish comments and calling it "censorship"? That's a neon sign that indicates to me a dedicated single-issue edit warrior. This edit summary and the comment "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing" do not disabuse me of that impression. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Update The most inflammatory comments have been voluntarily removed by 84.210.13.40 from a page with a couple hundred watchers. The same comments, posted twice by Zad68, remain on this page with its six thousand watchers. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy, the removal followed a polite request on the talk page of the IP. Perhaps the greater Misplaced Pages community could try that first next time, before hatting and blocking and edit warring over the hat and long ANI threads? NE Ent 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Makes lots of comments such as "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article" without references. And is unable to provide references Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hans providing references. (Oh and here's one with "nih.gov" in the url which I found by reading one the ones Hans provided.)NE Ent 03:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Holey moley, NE Ent, please read for context. The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that "male genital mutilation" is "the more politically correct term" without providing a reference. The second link Doc provided is showing that after Hans was pressed on the matter he admitted he didn't have a reference to provide. The first link you're providing is entirely unrelated to Doc's point, and didn't end up being useful to support what he was saying anyway. For your second link, I have no idea why you'd think a link to some letters to the editor would be useful here, even if it does appear "with 'nih.gov' in the url". Zad68 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts + goose/gander issues. From a very long list of problems with the article, most of which were never fixed though Jmh649 (the editor signing as "Doc James") claimed otherwise to justify his passing the article as GA, he picked out one in which I used my personal assessment to express a verifiable problem.

• Personal assessment: MGM is the more politically correct term.
• Verifiable problem: MGM is a closely related issue, often mentioned in the context of male circumcision. Conversely, to the extent that people discuss MGM at all, circumcision is generally discussed as the by far most prominent, though controversial, example. Yet the term is not even mentioned in the article. (Of course this is only verifiable if you are open to the possibility that for non-medical claims such as this, non-medical sources are permissible and in fact are usually better. Jmh649/Doc James has been trying to prevent the use of non-medical sources while generally not saying what he must know the be an indefensible principle. An unethical but unfortunately quite successful technique.)

Now, about a year after that long post, for the crime of quoting the list completely (as points brought up long ago but never addressed), Jmh649/Doc James and you attack me for a bit of opinion in a very long post that you don't want to address, by acting as if I had proposed my personal comment for direct inclusion in the article. And again, by not claiming that I proposed it for inclusion (easily falsifiable) yet incessantly commenting as if I had done so, you make it very hard for me to defend myself against this unfounded attack. (Essentially the same unethical technique that I mentioned in the previous paragraph wrt sourcing.)

Example: "The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that 'male genital mutilation' is 'the more politically correct term' without providing a reference." Zad68, you object when I ascribe you motivations. If you don't like that, then please act in such a way that I have a chance to assume good faith. This is not how to do it. Most readers of your comment will assume that "Hans made a specific claim" means I proposed it for inclusion in the article and will not follow the link, where they would see that I did not. Of course you are profiting from plausible deniability. It might be that you just misspoke. However, as these little 'mistakes' pile up and you don't even correct them, let alone apologise for them, quantity slowly turns into quality and it gets harder to resist the interpretation that you are being intentionally manipulative.

It has gone so far that we even have editors looking for sources for what I supposedly proposed for inclusion, to defend me. So the technique even works on those editors who are on my side and are prepared to do some research.

This misrepresenting and attacking what you consider the weakest point in my long list came after simply claiming it had been addressed didn't fly. The one thing that is missing is actual communication in the proper sense. You know, the thing that leads to compromise and an article that everyone is proud of.

Anyone who thinks I am full of shit, just search for my name in the archives of Talk:Circumcision. There you will see how I was trying for a long time to argue with a row of police in riot gear and with lowered eyepieces. That's the background for my current frustration and for my statements about the editing atmosphere at the article, and about what works and what doesn't work. Hans Adler 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly then this means the problem is worse than I thought. You made a rather contentious statement that male genital mutilation is a more politically-correct term. Assuming good faith, Doc James and I both read your comment as a genuine proposal to add content to the article, and you were asked for sources to support it. In the conversation on your User Talk you discussed looking for sources for it, and stated you didn't have any--to me this sounded like you were indeed serious. Now here you're saying you never intended that claim to be an article content change suggestion in the first place. So what actually happened is that you used a Misplaced Pages article content discussion page to air your contentious personal views regarding the article topic, and it interfered with discussion. This is another example of exactly the point I am bringing forward in this ANI discussion. Zad68 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly also, the name differences represent biases in the medical community that write articles about this. Surly male circumcision is genital mutialtion. Not of the same character as female genital mutilation, but it is still mutilation. Cutting off the hand of a baby is of course worse than cutting off the little finger, but nobody can claim that cutting off the little finger (or the foreskin) is not also mutilation. The name differences in the medical community probably arises from where the medical community that publishes about these things comes from. I doubt that the medical community in countries practicing female genital mutilation calls it female genital mutilation. They probably call it female circumcision. But the medical community publishing about these things doesn't come from Africa. It comes from USA and Europe where nobody practices female circumcision. USA and Europe does however practice male genital mutilation, and therefore it is called male circumcision in the literature.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're new to Misplaced Pages so a bit of background: For content discussions, especially about controversial topics, it's really important that, instead of making general comments based on our own opinions, we cite reliable sources and represent them accurately. We have a secondary source, the book Surgical Guide to Circumcision by Bolnick, Koyle and Yosha, that reviews the positions of the world's major medical organizations (Chapter 1, "Current Circumcision Trends and Guidelines," pp. 3-8). They call out the Royal Dutch Medical Association (the KNMG) as the major medical organization having the most negative view of circumcision. In the KNMG's own Viewpoint document on the subject, "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)", the KNMG uses "circumcision" and does not refer to it as "male genital mutilation", although they list a small activism organization that does. However once again this is a separate topic for the article Talk page. Zad68 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(posted after two edit conflicts and a real-life interruption) Congratulations, Zad68. Your response is so weird that I hardly know what to respond to that nonsense. But I will try anyway.

• The passage from me that you are referring to starts with "This question is not constructive." Do you take me for so stupid that I consider asking for sources for proposed article content unconstructive?
• My second sentence: "The claim that 'male genital mutilation' is a more politically correct term than 'circumcision' is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article." So that's me saying explicitly that the article can't say it. No need to look for sources. "No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us ." They won't help us because (a) nobody ever made the change proposal that you and Jmh649/Doc James are trying hard to foist on me, and (b) sources of that kind would be insufficient for that strawman change proposal.
• Then in my third paragraph I continued with a much weaker proposal, which incidentally is also something I was asking for from the start and that I am still asking for: "But such reliable sources are not even required for saying in the article: 'The analogous surgical procedure for females, clitoral hood reduction, is known as type Ia female genital mutilation.' This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section 'Female genital mutilation vs. NTC' in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection."

Back to MGM. When I originally asked for the term to be discussed in the circumcision article a year ago, male genital mutilation still redirected to the article. As I have since become aware, that is no longer the case. It now redirects elsewhere. Turns out that when that was proposed, I agreed immediately , removing the foundation for this particular complaint of mine. (Obviously I did so because I'm a reckless POV warrior trying to score a point.) If I had still been aware of that when I copied my old list, I would have dropped the item from my list. Then you and Jmh649/Doc James would have had to look for another strawman. Hans Adler 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it? Why couldn't you have just said "The term male genital mutilation is never used"? This brings us back to my point that airing contentious personal views about article topics interferes with communication, which is the reason why we're having this ANI conversation.

(Is this one item possibly just a language barrier thing? You've stated you're a non-native speaker of English, and I don't think any native English speaker would use the phrase "more politically correct" in this way, no matter what their personal views... "politically correct" is generally meant to indicate phrasing designed to give offense to the fewest people.) Zad68 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It was an unfortunate choice of words: a political statement more than a subjective claim of fact. And no, it's not a false friend issue.

"Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it?" Don't you think your choice to refer to my words a year ago with the words "your choice" is a bit silly? I don't know about you, but even in my peer-reviewed publications only a tiny percentage of words has been carefully chosen, rather than spontaneously written to get across a specific, carefully chosen point. Were you so impressed with my long list that you thought I had carefully crafted it over the period of a week, maybe with input of a committee? In that case I am afraid I will have to disabuse you. I am only an amateur Misplaced Pages editor, neither willing nor able to expend that kind of effort.

I am not a professional editor, and Misplaced Pages is an extremely unprofessional environment. That includes the current state of the circumcision article, your behaviour, Jmh649's behaviour (not just his signing habit) and of course mine. As an aside, Misplaced Pages's unprofessionalism is why I was so furious when during an Arbitration case (related to a situation in which I tried hard to prevent the continued trampling of the feelings of adherents of the religion that circumcises its older boys) I was called out by arbitrators for supposedly being unprofessional. You may be happy to hear that they even "reminded me" to use "an appropriate degree of civility" when dealing with insane incivility.

The two of you have obsessed over a single sentence of a long post that you have otherwise ignored. You have done so in a way that I would consider rude, hostile and unprofessional, not to mention uncollegial, even if done to a sentence picked from a high-profile scientific publication. I think this proved my point that constructive discussions of the article's scope and biases are not, in practice, permitted by you, the current owners. Hans Adler 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As it's now understood it was an unfortunate choice of words, no worries and I won't bring it up again. I very much welcome constructive discussions, but I feel very strongly that we can't have constructive discussions if they're littered with contentious personal views and/or original research. My views here are in line with WP:TPG. Hans, if you'll agree to do your very best to avoid airing your personal views/original research (and retract it when called on it), adhere to Misplaced Pages's content policies and guidelines—especially the requirement to provide reliable sourcing to support suggested changes, and allow outside admins/experienced neutral editors to make course corrections when our conversation goes off track, I'd be happy to drop this ANI. What are your requirements of me? Zad68 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not going to give you any formal promises that I can be hung up from if I don't follow them. I can't predict future details of my approach. I am usually pretty consistent though in following my conscience and my instincts of what is appropriate. (These may differ from Americans' due to my different socialisation.) I do not necessarily follow the words of policies and guidelines; I follow their intent, and if words and intent differ I may well make sure that the words are corrected. I do not cave in to hollow authority, though I am aware I must try not to overdo it. (I still think Drmies' hatting was a bit overzealous, but in retrospect so was my full revert. I was primarily not thinking of the first paragraph.) As an aside, in case you have drawn conclusions from the fact that I am not an admin: That's by choice, as I feel I have enough tools at my disposal and can act more freely.

Circumcision is one of the few topics where in practice there are no neutral editors because the pool of enthusiastic non-neutral editors is too big to allow neutral editors to make any impact. But the easiest way to make me correct a course is to actually communicate with me and where appropriate convince me I am wrong about something. Seriously. I have years of professional training on noticing when I am wrong.

With so little on offer, I have only one wish: That we will finally discuss the article – both details and overall effect on the reader – in a constructive atmosphere. It would be really great if you could help with that. And then you will see that I am actually not as extreme as I appear at first when I am trying to change a bias. While I wouldn't personally mind the article expressing my personal opinions, that's definitely not what I am going to push for. I am still a Wikipedian first. Hans Adler 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I want a constructive atmosphere too, that's my whole point. For us to have one we need to stick to sources and content policy and avoid using the article Talk page to air personal opinions. Hans can I ask you directly: With this response are you indicating an intention to change your behavior at all? If the answer is Yes, we can be done here. Zad68 01:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, you said above that "there are no neutral editors" in circumcision, and although I only became aware of this comment today, you said a year ago that "SandyGeorgia is an American editor and often edits medical topics, so it is not surprising that she missed the extreme American and medicalisation bias of this article. Hans Adler 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)". There we have another indication of where more AGF and less combativeness might yield better results. You know little or nothing of my cultural background in general, or my personal views on circumcision, specifically. When you make assumptions about other editors based on nationality, or anything else for that matter, the tendency seems to be then for you to react to requests for sources with a battleground mentality. It's not. Yes, I support both RS and MEDRS above all, no matter my personal preferences or biases, but I would have been able to understand your concerns if you had simply engaged in good faith without the hyperbole. Please try to not make assumptions about other editors' beliefs or perceived biases based on nationality, and if you'll leave the battleground out of discussions, it will save everyone a lot of time and agida.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to "Assuming good faith" (up there somewhere): Interpreting an editors opinion as intent to insert unsourced material into an article, and then using that interpretation as grounds for topic banning the editor is not assuming good faith. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In short, there is absolutely nothing innacurate with describing the cutting off of the foreskin of the sex organ of male infants as "genital mutilation", the same manner as is used to describe the practice of disfiguring the sexual organs of female infants.
The religious and/or historical (i.e., pre-modern hygienic practices) are not relevant to the present discussion. They may have originated on the basis of intentions that are at variance, but that is, I repeat, irrelevant to the present discussion. Moreover, the question is not related exclusively to the field of medicine.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. The way to deal with this dispute is to work through it not to remove one strong, intelligent, experienced party from the discussion giving others a free reign. I've been watching this discussion and many like it for along time. MEDRS is a means to protect the health of the readers, but let me be perfectly blunt. It has been used in multiple circumstances to shield content and sources from fair scrutiny and to disallow some good RS content. Hans Adler is raising some good points in regards to this article but as with many articles where MEDRS is involved he was met with derision and attack. Did he seem to become frustrated with that, yes. Is that blockable? In my mind, no, not unless there are more blocks handed out, but there is a prevailing wind right now on Misplaced Pages that uses MEDRS to control and cover other issues. I for one, and I suspect some nasty little comment will again be lobbed at me, intend to comment when I see this happening. I have very good reasons that I believe will impact this encyclopedia in the long run so please do not discount my comments in anyway to oppose a sanction here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

• Tally By my count two days, 9 support, 13 oppose -> time to close. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  NE Ent for as active as you are at ANI it's surprising you don't seem to be applying the principle that consensus isn't determined by a vote count; rather it's based on the strength of the arguments. In my view it looks like many of the oppose !votes aren't based on the behavior documented here and instead are based on interactions people have had with Hans in other areas of the project, general dislike of WP:MEDICINE, and in at least one case, based on no reason at all. If you wouldn't mind I have one last question for Hans, could we keep this thread open until that's answered? Zad68 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Mark Arsten. It's a rare Talk page comment by Hans Adler on this topic that doesn't include some sort of irrelevant dig at other editors, or that does include a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per how to use article pages, the use of talk pages goes far beyond "a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources." -- in fact, it explicitly says "The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. " (emphasis mine). Some examples of Hans's contribution include ,,,,. NE Ent 02:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not "go far beyond that" and your quote does not suggest otherwise. And unsourced personal opinion sexual abuse claims are just disruptive and inflammatory on that talk page, so the discussion drowns under the weight of such as that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. oppose ban per editor little olive rationale. Also @ Flyer -proposing missing content inclusion is not soapboxing, despite your somewhat diminishing suggestion that this might be so above. This is,in fact one of the primary and politest functions of an article talk page.If you dislike any proposed content you are free to continue to say so, as you do, often, and at length. -please re-read policy more carefully.There is a particular carelessness on the Circumcision talk page by many editors who really should know better than so carelessly citing policies - for instance weight is what it says on the tin - more about emphasis that about inclusion or non inclusion and so information about some considering cutting bits off any child's genitals modification at best or mutilation SHOULD be mentioned in a balanced article. Hans Adler has had the energy and courage to continue to speak out on this prematurely awarded "Good" article and should be supported not castigated. Perhaps other editors who by their silence on it and positions taken should declare ethnic, religious or other pro or con circumcision positions which may influence their edits, revert pattern, posturing and collusions within and without WP concerning this article. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht the littleolive !vote that this oppose is citing is one of the general anti-WP:MEDICINE !votes that doesn't actually address the behavior in the diffs given. You are a self-declared tendentious editor at this topic (see whole conversation here), and have developed into a single-purpose account regarding circumcision, I calculate about 98% of your edits over the past year have been related to it. Your attitude toward and understanding of Misplaced Pages content policy can be understood from this RFC you started that closed like 20 to 2 against your position, the exchange starting with when I asked you "What Misplaced Pages policy supports these proposed edits?" illustrate it best. You appear to believe your personal moral assessments should trump WP:DUEWEIGHT, see for an example. I'm hoping whoever closes this thread will take this into account in determining how much weight should be given to this !vote. Zad68 15:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you do indeed WP:Soapbox at the Circumcision talk page, over and over again...with the same or similar comments. I barely comment at that talk page, so there is no "often, and at length" with regard to me on that front. I am quite familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines; so I don't need to read any of them more carefully. You do, however. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad. I respect that you are dealing with diffs. Many wouldn't bother. However, you don't have the right to dismiss my or any editor's vote based on assumptions about personal positions, in this case that my vote is anti-medicine. I wonder where you are getting your information, Please note my vote and comments on the medical disclaimer discussion which supports a disclaimer because it will protect our readers. Even if I was an anti- medicine vote that does not give anyone permission to discount my or any editor's position and opinion. That's as bias I would hate to see propagated. Further, In my comment I address Hans Adler's behaviour in general, which is perfectly acceptable position, and as someone would who had been watching this editor for years. I note in my comment that he is frustrated, a clear but oblique reference to the diffs and the discussion which I have been watching closely. I also imply that his behaviour is a reaction. But since my comment wasn't clear enough: I am suggesting there was considerable baiting going on, and that I watched a very standard procedure among some editors to remove those who stand in their way. Hans Adler to be more straight forward, is intelligent, experienced and in my opinion, for the most part neutral, and fights for that neutrality. He has integrity and is honest although he can also be abrasive. Misplaced Pages needs him and this article which is owned needs his viewpoint and abilities too. I note the tone and snarkiness and arrogance of some of those who dealt with HA, and while one should not bite when baited, one should not bait either. My position and vote is worth what anyone else's is here. I respect your sense of neutrality and fairness, and I hope you will with draw your ill advised comment or at the least consider more carefully, in the future, judgments that cast a shadow both on editors and their motives.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

• Support. Reluctantly as I believe Hans has an important perspective to offer. However, I'm struck by an overweening sense of entitlement in the contribution of this editor to the talk page; that is, that their opinion and perspective, without significant reference to sources, is of direct relevance and validity to whatever topic arrives on that talk page - to the point where advice on proper genital hygiene appears to be offered . And this is to say nothing of the entirely inane, unreflective - and unresearched - supposition prosecuted above that would equate child sexual abuse with male circumcision. Regardless, I wouldn't favour an indef topic ban - 1 month would be fine for an editor in otherwise good standing. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm an outsider to the general debate, and have not interacted with Hans or with the circumcision article. Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that Hans Adler has been acting disruptively, per WP:BATTLE, in an unapologetically biased manner. His defense and protection of manifestly inappropriate behavior by an anon makes collaborating on Misplaced Pages harder for everyone, and he has been unwilling to entertain the possibility that his edits were inappropriate. He defends that is it "normal for a European to be outraged", and when it was suggested that everyone should behave like mature adults, he counters "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest." This defense of anger and immaturity is totally antithetical to the spirit of collaboration on Misplaced Pages. What's more distressing is that it appears to me that the !vote comments by some here (not all) are primarily motivated by their stance on circumcision itself, not by the analysis of Hans's behavior, which is clearly out of line. I think a topic ban would be appropriate, and if that is not done, I think something must be done to show that it such behavior is unacceptible on Misplaced Pages. – Quadell 13:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact, the IP comments in question were removed, and Hans in no way interfered with that process. What he pushed back against was failure to follow policy, which suggests "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page.". NE Ent 14:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a demonstrably untrue characterization as can be seen from the actual diffs and his own comments like and that show he never had a concern that the IP's comments were in any way inappropriate. Zad68 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• For all this rhetoric, what we haven't achieved yet is a neutral article. I've just read around the topic area, and if I was uninformed about the subject, I would have emerged with the view that circumcision is a perfectly normal and relatively uncontroversial practice, like cutting a child's hair, that only a few people really object to, and has real health benefits in AIDS-rich areas (an idea which seriously strains my credulity). We do need to present a more truthful picture of this subject area by putting the medical and ethical debate much higher up the agenda in the article.—S Marshall T/C 06:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of this practice (neutral leaning toward opposed) but last I checked (just before my son was born, so some years ago now) the AIDs claims looked solid. It was a coordination correlation without clear causation, and the cause could easily have been economic (only done by wealthier families) or cultural. But it was pretty strong as I recall and weighed quite a bit in my thinking on the issue. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we might be concerned that someone who states that the "idea" that circumcision "has real health benefits in AIDS-rich areas ... seriously strains credulity" is weighing in and alleging POV without apparently having reviewed what reliable secondary sources say on the topic-- one example (of which there are many). Discussions of POV are usually more productive with sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment and rebuttal- @ Zad -it is distressing to notice a pattern developing in your talk page behaviour Zad, where you label contributions of other editors and then subsequently and repeatedly attribute such labelling to its subject. Poor form Zad - and transparent too. @Flyer - your definition of your participation at WP circumcision as "barely commenting" is very easily proven wrong. You are a strong proponent of the article in its current truncated form. As to my own editing pattern or stance and despite Zad maintaining that I edit this article almost exclusively- I have long since given up editing the article page at all at all{ chiefly because the coterie of editors who maintain the article in its current damnably unbalanced state (as S Marshall succinctly describes above) blanket revert without debate,and group condemn most attempts at inclusion of any material from several commercial, sociological, economic and cultural aspects of this form of child (and less often adult) genital body modification and excision.} I think it important that the merry blinkered dance towards "featured" status slow down a little and will continue to exercise my right as an editor in good standing to debate how to improve this,or any article I choose on their respective talkpages. Attempts to intimidate other editors with misattributed policy references are counterproductive and unworthy of senior editors. The chief points I raised in my previous entry on this page remain unanswered. Is there any single pr-circumcision editor who is active on this page prepared to declare that a personal leaning (for whatever reason) in favour of circumcision may,even only at times, influence their individual or group behaviour ? Or that group planning of tag team edit ambushes takes place off campus ? A solution in the medium term may be to have two medical "sub " articles one describing the "surgical procedure" article and the second about the "medical culture" article surrounding it and to initiate a very different "flagship" article that does truly illustrate an over view of every aspect of circumcision - from its depiction in literature and comedy to its soft science,legal history, and psychoanalytic aspects including an overview of the area of MC that the current article focusses so heavily upon --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 14:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you stated, "@Flyer - your definition of your participation at WP circumcision as 'barely commenting' is very easily proven wrong. You are a strong proponent of the article in its current truncated form." I state in reply to that: "Um, no. And this is very easily seen by anyone who checks that article's edit history to see just how many times I've commented there and in what way. Do I believe that the Circumcision article is fine as is? Yes. Do I care much about that article or the topic of circumcision? No." That you can even misrepresent my involvement with that article, and in such a boasting way, when it can easily be proven that you are wrong on that front, it just goes to show what Zad68 and others mean about your argument skills (or lack there of). And as for you editing the Circumcision article almost exclusively... It's that you edit the Circumcision talk page almost exclusively (clearly shown by your contributions), and mostly to complain, belittle and mock. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, people are eager to discuss their own views about the practice of circumcision, and how they think the article should look, but what's under question here is the inappropriate behavior of a specific editor. – Quadell 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article's failure to meet NPOV is not irrelevant, Quadell.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with S Marshall (hey, when you type that out, it's like you're a US Marshall! That's kind of cool). Drmies (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do see that I may have appeared a little off topic above Quadell but it was a natural corollary. It is heartening to see other editors here appear to recognize/identify patterns of intimidation or exclusion which I have remarked upon before. i see Hans Adler's vociferousness as very much a response to, and expression of frustration with this. I do admire editors on both and neither side of this debate who have the energy and resources and time and dedication to WP to continue chipping away at improving the article. Perhaps this is sometimes WP at its best and the article need not be a camel - a horse designed by a committee ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is indeed on-topic, but not for the reasons being given. One's personal feelings that well-substantiated and supported medical findings "strain credulity" are simply not relevant. Please find the reliable systematic reviews that say the same things and post them on the article Talk page, and stop using unsupported claims as an excuse for justifying improper behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Where have I used unsupported claims as an excuse for justifying improper behaviour? What I said is that our coverage isn't neutral, and that the article is misleading by giving too much weight to the pro-circumcision view, and that the medical claims in the article look unlikely to me. My view is that if they're accurate then they've been overemphasised. I have expressed no judgment about anyone's behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Read a few lines up, to a reliable source (one of many) that deals with the topic of your "strained credulity"; a well-positioned discussion of POV involves sources, and knowledge of the topic, not opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, okay, after reading around I'm prepared to accept that, but I'm still of the view that the 2009 study is given way too much emphasis in the article. As currently written, we've got the health benefits of circumcision in AIDS-prevalent areas placed front and centre, in the third paragraph of the lede, before even the basic topic of worldwide circumcision rates, while the ethical debate is buried way down in the depths of the article. I put it to you that the emphasis is plainly wrong and not NPOV at all.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's probably not even just the amount of emphasis. Research in the medical sciences has extremely serious quality problems. Usually there is a bias for interventions, especially for the use of pharmaceuticals. (The 'cleanest' manipulation technique is doing plenty of similar studies and publishing only those which accidentally say what you want. As effects tend to be rather small compared to random events, that actually works.) Doctors who consider circumcision unethical can't even do the best kind of research in the first place, and the other side, which has no qualms, seems to be exploiting this fact in some countries where people can easily be talked into circumcision for little recompensation. Overall, it is not surprising that there is disagreement among professionals. It's essentially a political topic and needs to be treated as such. The only way to treat it as a non-political, scientific, objective topic is by picking out one of the two camps as the arbiter of truth. Hans Adler 17:10, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I think Quadell's comments here are exactly on target. Zad68 03:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Quadell's comments are exactly OFF target. We are NOT here to discuss "the inappropriate behavior of a specific editor" Any awake judge would slap down and have such a remark withdrawn from a court record. I politely urge Quadell to withdraw it. We are here instead to discuss editor/admin Zad/Zach's allegations that another editor's personal feelings have not and will not permit him to debate the article subject. Zad/Zach has made a proposal based on his interpretation and projection of another editors position and mindset to topic ban this editor at his (Zad/Zach's) request. -— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 2:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)

So far, in so far as a vote count counts and from an entry above it appears that vote counts are important to the "ban" camp - we have 13 oppose ban votes and 2 "strong" oppose ban votes ( making 15) and 10 support ban votes and 1 support ban vote- on the condition that the alleged "disruptive behaviour' , to use Quadell's term, does not cease. Hans Adler's editing IS disruptive and tendentious. It is disrupting the sterile state of the article and its talk page. It is tendentious in strongly favoring a particular point of view in a way that may cause quality discussion and change- both things which the article+ talk page badly need. Long may his lum reek.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /_Stalk 19:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. There seem to be issues which make NPOV editing impossible. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. (and... only 31 hrs for the "Norwegian IP"? wow.) - WOLFchild 06:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision.

Sorry to bother about this, but I think something still has to be fixed regarding User:A Quest For Knowledge (notified on talk page) and the formal warning of someone as "an uninvolved administrator".

This (non-Administrator) editor used an Administrator warning. It contains the phrasing This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision). It looks like it did just that and logged User:Nomoskedasticity onto the case decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Here's the diff.

If I hadn't noticed that it formally and erroneously added that user to the list of individuals "warned" by administrators, I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't think the user meant to go so far as to add it to the case decision, but maybe you agree it should be removed from the case decision as an error. Thanks. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is quite poorly worded, but WP:General sanctions specifically allows anyone to issue warnings, and for such warnings to appropriately logged. It is a good example why using templates for warnings is often problematic, but not indicative of improper logging of such notifications. There has been recent discussion about this, but this is the current state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone have the patience to sort what is behind the "warning/notification"? My quick look suggests that two editors !voted in opposite directions at Talk:James Delingpole#Edit protect (and reached different conclusions at WP:BLPN#James Delingpole), and one of them dropped that irritating blurb on the other's talk, and rather triumphantly made an officious log (diff). That's a pretty outrageous loophole that gives one player a way to irritate and poke an opposing player. I know it's being thrashed out at WT:AC/DSR, but the myth that it's merely a "notice" and not a CIVIL way to say get fucked should not be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:General sanctions differentiates between community sanctions, and sanctions resulting from an Arbcom case. Arbcom sanctions, which this would fall under, are supposed to be logged by an uninvolved admin. The proposal at WT:AC/DSR is for ArbCom sanctions to be logged by anyone, but so far this has not yet been adopted. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

These warnings/loggings are being used too often to gain the upper hand in disputes. I agree with Johnuniq's and Neotarf's interpretation. Let's let admins take care of these types of warnings. - MrX 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed warning from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and notified clerks Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#non_admin_logging_DS NE Ent 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• At first look, and as someone completely uninvolved, it appears this "administrator warning" is being used as a chilling effect tactic. When I see that the defenders are hardly neutral on this overall subject, I suggest remedies and possible sanctions should be discussed at this time. This should not be tolerated. As for a page that lists "warnings" I confess to astonishment that such exists, much less appears to be being gamed. Jusdafax 13:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• The warning should probably be removed. It isn't enforceable anyway, except by administrators. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Point being that Nomoskedasticity understands the situation and has pushed back, whereas other less experienced editors could well be intimidated by it. Which raises the question whether this type of incident has occurred previously. Jusdafax 21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template was actually changed to no longer be a warning some time back and is now simply a notification. Unfortunately, the template was also changed some time back to include the term "uninvolved administrator" by default, which was previously absent from the boilerplate warning. Now a non-admin has to add a specific parameter to present it as a regular warning from a non-admin. Many non-admins issue notifications and this is useful since it means editors new to the process or to Misplaced Pages in general can be made aware more quickly and, if they are disruptive, makes it simpler when there is a need for restrictions since those require an editor to be aware of the discretionary sanctions regime in the topic area beforehand. I think the problem here is that the boilerplate warning says "uninvolved administrator" by default when that should be the optional parameter. That would be as absurd as a vandalism or 3RR warning template including that term by default. AQFK simply used a template without realizing it had been changed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems a fair summation. Collect (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the template was changed to "no longer be a warning" or not, AQFN explicitly stated it was meant to be both notification and warning. Having read a bit more of the case file, it is interesting that AQFN is attempting to warn people into proper behavior on a Climate Change related topic using a case where he was topic-banned from Climate Change articles for disruptive battle-grounding. And I still think it's arguably an inappropriate way to end a noticeboard discussion by a deeply involved editor. If it's supposed to be "just a notice" then it should only be allowed to be formally logged where it's "just a notice" and not something possibly point-making. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All this amounts to is keeping a record of who is aware of the discretionary sanctions in a topic area. There is no official finding of misconduct, but just one editor informing another of certain special rules regarding a topic and making sure others are aware said editor has been so informed. Non-admins warn other non-admins all the time about alleged misconduct. In this case such things get logged.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious what happened in this case—one editor used the notice/log to be as obnoxious as possible to another editor during a discussion where the two editors disagreed. There was not the slightest reason to issue the notice other than it is possible to do so. The case reported here demonstrates very bad behavior, and is not similar to the standard procedure whereby an editor should be warned if they may be wandering into trouble by aggressive editing or vigorous commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be a concern about AQFK's conduct, but not specifically an issue with the notice. I have made some changes that should be sufficient to address concerns regarding the warning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But why are you warning this user at all? Your "changes" were that you over-ruled an admin, NE Ent, and re-added the user to the case decision? I don't see how this helps. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent is not an admin. My change did not overrule him either as I did not restore a diff to AQFK's warning, but added a diff of Nomo's acknowledgment that he is aware of the discretionary sanctions. This is useful as it insures that, if Nomo does do something wrong in the topic area, that there will be no question of whether Nomo is or is not aware of the sanctions regime. Such awareness is a prerequisite for action just as warnings for 3RR or vandalism are generally necessary before action can be taken.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But if the user was previously made aware that the sanctions existed and had already acknowledged this, then for what practical purpose are you ne-notifying them? Informing people more than once or informing people that clearly know the sanctions are in place seems like it could be interpreted as some kind of undue harassment. In this case, the user already knew of the issue from AQFK's notice, this discussion here, and now you seem to be trying to "only notify" them again. There's still no evidence the user required any sort of notification in the first place. How many notifications are enough? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No "re-notifying" occurred. I simply tried to note in the log that Nomo said he is aware of the sanctions. Should we say that non-admins can notify editors and add it to the log and that other non-admins can come along and edit-war it out if they think this is unwarranted then we are inviting feuds over arbitration pages where some editors object to the notification. If we say that non-admins are no longer permitted to notify editors and add it to the log, well, this won't change the need for notifications, but it may encourage non-admins to try and get admins to notify editors for them so it can be logged. You may even have editors dragged to AE for the sole purpose of getting an official notification. I think it is far simpler and less disruptive to allow non-admins to make notifications and add to the logs. The real problem here was with "uninvolved administrator" being the default term in the template, which is really a problem of the template having been changed unilaterally some time back. My estimation is that changing the template to make the non-admin version the default version is the easiest way to avoid further problems of this nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting even more obnoxious. AQFN left that notification as a hostile act, as some above have recognised. It was not merited. And so TDA's attempt to make it kosher are not welcome. There is no problem with my editing that calls for a log of a notification of this sort. Neither AQFN nor TDA are uninvolved in this topic area and I suggest that they both step back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't recall ever editing any article about climate change or even raising an opinion about the editing in that topic area. Notifications can be issued by anyone and then logged. This is not the sole domain of an admin. Looking over the dispute that sparked this, I do not think it was at all unwarranted for you to be notified. Seems a lot of bickering is going on recently regarding some climate change articles and further enforcement requests are likely. For the record, I do not think this is at all appropriate. AQFK made a mistake when he posted that template without knowing the default version now said "uninvolved administrator" and was not trying to pretend to be anything. Had he known, I have no doubt he would have made it the non-admin version. Your insistence on making this accusation by changing the section heading from a more neutral version is not compliant with policy regarding use of your user talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates, and template wording, are not policy. Policy is policy, and the current DS policy clearly specifies warnings are to be issued and logged by admins. NE Ent 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, the policy does not say that only admins can give notifications. Non-admins have been giving notifications and logging those notifications for some time without any suggestion that it was against policy, because the policy says naught on the matter. Arbitrators have similarly not suggested that there is anything stating only admins can give notifications, despite having many opportunities to do say when the issue is raised explicitly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diff of an example.NE Ent 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just look through the log of notifications on ARBPIA, where you will see numerous involved non-admins and at least one involved admin giving notifications to editors who appear in the topic area. Hell, Nomo made a similar mistake to AQFK in that topic area when giving out this notification. A notification should, generally speaking, only be about informing someone of the existence of sanctions and that can reasonably be handled by anyone. Of course, any editor can "warn" an editor to stop doing something, but those are not going to be logged unless they are also notifications.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some past history concerning TDA and Nomoskedasticity? When TDA excused AQFK's abuse of the sanctions notification system to poke an opponent I thought it was just the standard misunderstanding, but the comment above shows that something more is involved. In that comment, TDA points to a user who has made a total of 16 edits, five of which were to change the country shown in the infobox at Ariel University (like several IPs, the user prefers Israel, whereas the article states that the university is in the Palestinian territories). That is exactly the situation for which the discretionary sanctions notification is intended, and Nomoskedasticity gave a very reasonable ARBPIA notification (diff) after the fifth change of the location. Referring to that notification as a "similar mistake" is an extreme form of misunderstanding—is it grasping-at-straws to justify a hasty and incorrect initial comment here, or is it an attempt to poke an opponent from some prior dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Name calling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mrm7171 called me a troll four separate times over two days on the health psychology talk when disputing my edits. He also lodged that epithet at me when commenting on his additions to the health psychology page. I want him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All iss246 does on Misplaced Pages is try to insert falsely this unregulated small club called OHP and try to align witgh proper regulated professions in psychology. You are nothing but a 'troll' iss246.

Unwarranted accusation. I am bringing you up on charges. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 I doubt if you are actually an academic iss246. hat we know about you is that you are an internet troll. You post 'OHP' wherever you can in any legitimate area of the psychology profession you can. I do hold a Doctorate in psychology for your information. But that is irrelevant. Who cares! Its irrelevant. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. No, I think iss246, you are an untrained 'OHP practitioner" who wanted a career change and did not want to train in the many years it would take to train to be a professional Health Psychologist or professional Occupational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear iss246. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Stop trolling. Lifecoaching may be more your cup of tea. That, like an 'OHP practitioner' also allows any career changer like yourself to become, without any actual training.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not reviewed the edits in article-space but did review the Talk page. iss246 appears to show appropriate conduct, while Mrm's behavior is essentially harassment and personal attacks. Saying that iss refuses to discuss the issue, then pouncing on him with personal attacks when he does, is a sign of baiting. Mrm shows a strong habit of focusing on the editor, rather than the article, in a generally disparaging manner.

In my view, we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, which is not only disruptive to Misplaced Pages, but negatively effects retention. If Mrm's accusation of stalking is true however, he should provide examples of other articles where iss246 has allegedly followed him.

BTW - whether an editor is an expert in a topic does not effect their credibility as a contributor, though it sometimes helps, and sometimes inhibits, good editing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• With all due respect the history between iss246 and myself goes back almost a year. You looked at a tiny, final snippet where iss246 had just reported this, and then tailored his responses for a moment. I have been subjected to masses of verbal abuse by iss246 over many months and can provide 100,200 examples. Instead I hope we can refrain from personal abuse, and focus solely on editing from here on. Stop personalizing and just focus on making Misplaced Pages's articles better for the general community, that is readers. Please don't judge me on a tiny fragment. I for one think we can all move on, and cease completely any further childish name calling, rather than me go back over almost a years worth of records and provide over 100 hard core examples of iss246's personal abuse toward me. Apologies to administrator for the placement of my replies on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with CorporateM. Mrm7171 seems to think s/he knows more about psychology than anyone else and thus behaves as though no one else is qualified to make changes to psychology-related articles (check out some of his/her earliest edit summaries...in all caps, mind you). S/he also shows egregious ownership issues of psychology articles, and s/he has even been blocked for this kind of behavior before. Maybe a topic ban is in order?

BTW, Iss246, you never informed Mrm7171 of this discussion (as is required), so I did just that. Erpert 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not informing Mrm7171. I should have asked a third party. I don't like going on his talk page. And I don't like him going on mine. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My responses to iss246 yesterday were after months and months of long term abuse by iss246. I can collect at least 100 examples. For months iss246 has posted on his tall page, filthy, baseless lies and defamation, calling me a troll, thinking he knows best about everything, he is a professor. Therefore his opinion was all that mattered. I had enough. I am human. No-one can tolerate that type of long term abuse. Below is the section of filth still boldly pasted on his talk page, and left there for months.

On iss246's talk page he has this filth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mrm7171 did not put my angry response into context. My response came after he placed on my talk page walls and walls of unnecessary text that included needling recommendations to act "calmly." Mrm7171 did not mention what I wrote at the end of my angry response, which was to I ask him to never write on my talk page again. Iss246 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In response, I know no more, or no less, than other editors. I have made excellent edits on Misplaced Pages. In many articles. I have been subjected to masses of abuse from iss246 over months and can provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward me such as the section posted on his talk page. Countless times iss246 talks on and on and on about how he is a professor, he knows best, etc etc etc...I can provide 100 examples. I had enough. I also hold a Doctorate in psychology but who cares!. Holding Doctorate or being an expert is irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less about my doctorate. Never have. Never will. Who care's! It is irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. Everyone's opinion is equal. Don't use it in my title, where most others do. I know no more, no less than anyone else on the psychology topics. No individual's opinion matters any more or any less.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I was blocked because when I first joined Misplaced Pages, I broke the 3 revert rule, once. I then learnt from that block. Being blocked once should not be brought up again and again to abuse an editor? Surely?

On the Occupational health psychology page here is what was written in October 2013 and only recently revisited the article. Admittedly, after re-reading iss246's posting of his filthy, abusive defamation which remained on his talk page, my reaction to him personally came out a couple of days ago, and called him some names too. I realised straight away and apologised for my childish replies in self defence to iss246's long term abuse! We are all human. We all have a limit. No-oner stepped in and stopped iss246 from his abuse. Everyone saw his abuse. It has remained on his talk page for months.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Misplaced Pages's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Misplaced Pages decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world did you post all this in the middle of my comment? That really confuses things. And if you can really "provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward ", well, let's see some examples. Erpert 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what a mess. I can certainly provide a lot of references. Just added one from today at the base of the page. If administrator wants examples give a day or two and I will collate them in a coherent manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what to do. Frankly, after looking over various talk pages I'm inclined to throw a block in the direction of MRM if only out of irritation over the caps, the bold, the odd insertions of comments, the aggressiveness, and that there's supposed to be a Ph.D. attached to all that yelling in somewhat sub-par language. Would an IBAN be helpful? I'd warn MRM for personal attacks and all that, but Iss has also called the other party a troll. I can't judge whether MRM's edit history warrants such an appellation, but the comments pertaining to Iss are certainly trollish. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for bolding. And using capitals the other day. Won't do that again. Just read this message.Did not know the policy on bolding either. Sincere apologies.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at my wits end after being abused and attacked and accused by iss246 of everything under the sun. As a human, after a year of abuse, I got angry the other day. I am only human. An example just today is iss246 accusing me of not reading an article, that isi am lying. It has been endless. Here is his comments from only today.....

""Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it.".... courtesy of iss246 only today!

I did not lie. I read the article. Why does iss246 have to accuse and insinuate and attack constantly. Then one day, I snap. And give hime some back, I'm going to be slapped with a barring or whatever? That would seem grossly unfairMrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off iss246 goes again on the base of the Talk:Health psychology all day. I cannot stop him attacking me, accusing me of bad faith. Twice today. I remain silent as I very often have. Cannot an administrator look iss246 personalizing, attacking, accusing constantly. Can he not just focus on editing? Can no-one stop him from doing this. Here is another example. I remain silent. As I mostly do, under his relentless attacks and personalizing instead of focusing on editing only. Please refer to today's accusations and personalizing, by iss246. Again apologies for 'cracking under this relentless personalization' and accusations of bad faith by iss246. I normally try and ignore his attacks and remain silent as Misplaced Pages recommends but this is ridiculous. We are all human. That is the only reason why I cracked the other day. Iss246 also avoids answering direct questions regarding actual editing. Talk:Health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given this is on the administrator's page here, can an administrator please go to the Talk:Health psychology and read all of the last day's rants by iss246. I just re-readit and feel like I need to respond to his false, baseless accusations. I refrain. I keep silent. What do you recommend? All day, iss246 has personalized, accused, attacked. Not focused on editing. I stay silent. What do you recommend. Can you warn him please. Can you ask him at the very least to stop this relentless, personalization and focus only on editing. Please!Mrm7171 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, sure, gladly. I did. And what I see is a rebuttal on their part of accusations made by you. You say "I stay silent"--no, you don't, you're here again, doing a passive-aggressive dance in which you play the victim. I urge other admins to look into this matter to see if more drastic measures are necessary: I am going to block for the latest talk page disruptions.

  I note, for instance, that Mrm is the one playing the personal card on that article talk page--quite inappropriate, with headings such as "Fake references cited by iss246". They started the latest section, "Please stop accusing me of lying or not reading a journal article iss246!". One can't fault Iss for responding. The clincher, perhaps, is this edit here--the old "there you go again", with "Stop the abuse and personalizing please" as an edit summary. I've had enough of this: blocked temporarily for personal attacks, article talk page abuse, and general disruption. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been an issue for about 8 months. Iss246 hasn't always responded well, but Mrm7171 was confrontational from the start, and often seems to be goading Iss246 and other editors. I had hoped that things would calm down, but they seem to have fired up again after a break. Hopefully something short of an indef block will help, but intervention is needed. - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to personal attacks Mrm7171 keeps starting long and unending debates over minor points on talk pages that continue even after several editors disagree. Points that seem to be settled will be brought up again weeks or months later. I hope the intervention will help. Psyc12 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Like Bilby, I've spent several months at Talk:Occupational health psychology (and now Talk:Health psychology) trying to resolve this dispute, basically since Mrm7171's appearance there. Speaking in my capacity as a volunteer editor who has been dealing with him since around the time of his first block, Mrm7171 appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem. This problem is IMO not likely to be solved. I believe that Mrm7171 would sincerely like to be more effective, but he comes across as an intransigent POV pusher with odd beliefs. For example, he makes comments about professional psychology associations being "clubs" with a "hidden agenda". He keeps starting, and then dropping, these weird discussions about whether "OHP" is the same thing as "occupational health psychology". He complains frequently that it is possible to be a practitioner of occupational health psychology without first being a licensed clinical psychologist (this is not unique to OHP; for example, professors of psychology are legally called "psychologists" even if they are not licensed, and all sorts of nurses, allied health workers, and even medical doctors are professionally involved in psychology without being licensed psychologists).

Like Bilby, I'd prefer that this was handled without an indef, although with each encounter, I'm less confident that this is possible, and I would not be surprised if other people deemed it necessary. An WP:IBAN would need to involve more than Iss246, as Mrm7171 has significantly directed his anti-OHP comments towards at least one other editor. I think that at topic ban from anything related to psychology might work. A TBAN for anything smaller than psych (e.g., health-related psych) might be too difficult to understand the boundaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing has been remarkably patient through months of difficult interaction with Mrm7171. I'm sorry to say that Mrm7171's contributions have been (with rare exceptions) nonconstructive and disruptive. Not only that, his ideas and his style of discussion are so odd that I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, and probable socking by User:Clubintheclub

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First as an IP, then as a just-created account, User:Clubintheclub has repeatedly added unproven allegations of misconduct to Woody Allen. The allegations are rather graphic, and are characterized as unproven. Despite the edits being rejected and removed by multiple editors, most frequently myself, generally as BLP violations, the editor keeps adding them back, and has violated 3RR. Comments on various talk pages show sufficient expertise with WP principles and policies to support the inference that this is a "bad hand" account of an experienced editor (and the "if you exclude my content you're violating NPOV" is a standard trope of BLP violators). Request block of this account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Response from Club in the Club

I have requested mediation to solve this dispute (actually prior to your posting here. See the mediation page - you should have gotten a notification. You should try mediation before going to Administrator's noticeboard. Clubintheclub (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am a longtime lurker, new editor. Hope that we can resolve this amicably! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, false accusations by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has reported false allegations against me above after I tried to find a solution through mediation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has denied mediation. Summary of issue on the Woody Allen BLP can be found here Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Woody_Allen_-_violation_of_NPOV_and_BLP_by_user_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

Allegations against me for "socking" or "using multiple accounts" or being "a bad hand" are false and will be found to be true with any analysis of my usage patterns and IP.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has also violated 3RR and NPOV editing and ignores the BLP guidelines. I request an investigation into this behavior and sanctions against the account should the administrators find my concerns valid. Additionally, I request dismissal of the report Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has made against me.

I apologize to the Admin who has to deal with this petty dispute. Again, I attempted mediation but all parties must agree. :-/

Clubintheclub (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

More info on the specific page edits can be found here Talk:Woody_Allen#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations Clubintheclub (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Clubintheclub, if you continue to edit-war to restore unproven court-rejected allegations to the Woody Allen article without absolute consensus that doing so is in compliance with BLP policy I will block you. I am completely uninvolved from an admin standpoint and your actions on the article so far are unacceptable. A block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not going to happen as he was correct in removing the disputed and incredibly contentious material while it is under discussion. Do you not see the irony in starting a section here decrying "false allegations" against another editor while potentially adding your own in to the article of a living subject? --Jezebel'sPonyo 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Understood. If I understand you correctly, I should continue to promote discussion and come to a consensus in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • Yes. --John (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I've merged these complaints, warned Clubintheclub for 3RR and BLP, closed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's ANEW thread and will "keep an eye" on the new user in case he/she needs further support. I invite an uninvolved admin to formally close this unless anyone thinks further immediate action is required. --John (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gil Brendan D´Angels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gil Brendan D´Angels (talk · contribs) Has persisted in posting various versions of what is either a hoax or a highly promotional autobiography in spite of repeated warnings and deletions. See the user's talk page and deleted contributions especially. There are zero helpful contributions. I would like support for an indefinite block as per WP:NOTHERE. DES 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure he'll get an indef because the last (not final) warning was given to him/her a few months ago. Also, other than the warnings, everything else listed on the talk page isn't in English, so it's a little difficult to understand exactly what is going on. Erpert 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at his deleted contribs, you will see that this editor started by posting what was in form an article about himself (or someone of the same name as the user name at least), which if not a Hoax, would be highly promotional. It was deleted as a Hoax multiple times. Variant versions of this have been re-posted in several locations on multiple occasions. More recently, this editor has taken to posting what seems to be a longer version of this same text, but in Spanish. It is in any case, pretty clearly not an attempt to communicate with anyone at Misplaced Pages, and so does not belong on the user talk page. See

Only admins can look at deleted contributions. Erpert 01:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. He ignored the final warning and the ANI notice, and it's clear he was only here to promote himself. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:Original research at List of metro systems

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article uses user-invented criteria to list metro systems, including arbitrary numbers with no direct, reliable source. An example of this is that a subway must have a headway of 10 minutes in order to be listed. While sources do mention "high fequency of service", they do not give a direct number that backs up this 10 min rule, hence making the invention of a 10 min rule a breach of WP:Original research. User:IJBall is continuously ignoring consensus held by other editors to remove this 10 min rule, and despite multiple warnings of violating WP:Original research, it has now come to a point where he is deliberately manipulating a reference to mislead others and suit his own need. It appears that discussion alone will not result in a consensus due to User:IJBall continuously violating WP:Original research. I request actions taken by an admin to deal with this user's non constructive behavior. Massyparcer (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer, I have supplied multiple references, which you continue to ignore. I also have made no claim about keeping the specific "10 minute rule", just pointed out that, by reference, headway must be considered as a criteria. That is all. --IJBall (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations here please. I have not ignored the references but quoted all the information from the references to show that a 10 minute rule doesn't exist in the sources. High frequency of service must be considered but not by an arbitrary number invented by a Wiki user, which you have continued to claim out of nowhere in the talk page. WP:Original research makes it explicitly clear that "you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Massyparcer (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The "10 Minute Headway" number is derived from sources, which is the fact that you continue to ignore. But, at this point, I'll wait for a ruling on this from someone official looking at the transcripts. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Then put up a source here to prove your claim. This is the problem. You have never shown any source that mentions the 10 min rule directly and are continuing to invent an arbitrary number out of the air. At this point, you have declared on the talk page not to respond to me, which is not constructive. You need to talk with other editors, even if they disagree with you, to reach consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

NYC Transit Forums is one source you can use. Unfortunately, I can't find the page, and forums aren't reliable sources anyway. Why does the 10-minute rule need to be included, anyhow? All heavy rail underground systems (at least all that I know of) can be listed here. Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

UrbanRail.net is another source for the 10 minute headway figure. In any case, it matters because traffic volume (and, in the case of one reference, frequency) is a defining characteristic of "heavy rail" - otherwise, the system is a "light metro" (i.e. medium-capacity rail transport system), and not a "full" or "true" heavy rail metro system. Also, there are "premetro" light rail systems that have a "heavy rail" underground portion, but are not true "heavy rail" systems. --IJBall (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, the author of UrbanRail.net makes it explicitly clear from the beginning that the 10 min rule is his "personal definition" and hence can't used because it is original research that doesn't cite a single reliable reference. Read WP:SOURCES first which makes it very clear that sources relying heavily on "personal opinion" fall under questionable sources and self-published sources (i.e. unreliable sources). Massyparcer (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are premetro lines that exceed that requirement of more than 6 trains per hour. For example, the Green Line (MBTA). Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But systems like the Green Line have at-grade crossings, which rules them out as "heavy rail" metro. --IJBall (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So does the Chicago 'L'. The 'L' has eight rapid transit lines, four (Brown, Pink, Purple, and Yellow Lines) of which have at-grade crossings. Is the 'L' not a metro system, based on this? Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Penwhale: True, but this is missing the point. Some metro lines with numerous grade crossings still qualify as metro lines, not light rail, because they pass the "10 minute headway" criteria mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the difference between the two examples above is the number of grade-crossings per line. But I think this discussion here has veered too far afield, and it would probably be better if it was directed back to Talk:List of metro systems... --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That or WP:DRN. Going to close this off now. Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

COI on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Hello. I've been pointed here after asking the lovely IronGargoyle for advice on an issue that's been bugging me. Since I already summed up the issue when I asked him, I'll just be so bold as to quote it here:

Hello there. I have a question on how to process with something that's been bugging me for a couple of days now. Seeing as I'm not sure on where to ask (my issue doesn't seem to meet RFC/U requirements), and I've seen you being active (read: being faster reverting in Huggle than I was), I thought I'd ask you.

Here's a quick outline of my situation:

About two weeks ago, there was a user named Animalgatekeeper who was valiantly removing content from the RSPCA page, despite being reverted many times by various users. After he was finally blocked, I got an e-mail from the user through the Wiki, in which the user claimed to be the Head of Communications at the RSPCA. After discussing with the folks on IRC about the possibility of a fake, and verifying that there really is a person with that name and position at the company, I decided to give it a go and replied to the e-mail. It turns out that this person was indeed who he claimed he is. In the e-mail, I tried to explain to him what he did wrong and how he should proceed instead to the best of my knowledge. He seemed to understand what the issue was, and I figured the issue over. (PS: I uploaded a copy of the e-mail exchange here) However, a couple of days ago, out of curiousity, I checked up on the RSPCA page.

In the meantime, there seem to have been various edits done by two similarily named users, AdamB21 and RichB6. These two users seem to be desperate trying to mend some of the criticism in the article. A lot of the edits seem rather dubious to me. However, my entire "life" on Misplaced Pages is being a gnome, really, and I feel very insecure when it comes to editing of any kind.

For that very reason, I wanted to look for outside help.

What would you say the right course of action from here would be?

PS: If you can't be bothered, which I'd fully understand of course, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction on where to ask. :-)

In any case, thanks a lot. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if this is all just in my head. But maybe it's not, so I'd be grateful for some input about this. It doesn't seem far-fetched that this may well have been the same person.

Now, as mentioned to IronGargoyle, I'm more of a casual Huggler. If you folks were to decide that this is something worth looking into, I'm happily willing to participate of course (e.g. make the SPI or something like that), but if anyone is willing to take over, that would be good as well. Thanks & cheers. ~ | twsx | _cont | ~ 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an WP:OTRS system where someone can "prove" their identity, however, that still does not give them "ownership over the article - they still have to edit as per WP:COI. Indeed, Jimbo himself has stated that those with COI should not edit the article directly, but propose changes on the article talkpage to gain new consensus ES&L 09:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On a quick look I see a lot of edit-warring going on, but absolutely nothing recent on the talk page, where these editors need to be directed to sort things out. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They may not all be the same editor. Animalgatekeeper's repeated section blanking, which clearly constitutes edit warring, is rather different from the attempts by AdamB21 (who has not edit-warred) to write accounts of controversial episodes in the charity's history that are based entirely on its own press statements. Except for one case of section blanking, which I reverted, I've tried to reformulate these modifications so as to deal with both sides fairly. I've also left a note on the editor's talk page. Both accounts now seem to be inactive. RichB6 seems to be making fairly honest attempts to correct inaccuracies. --Lo2u 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia national association football team‎

Could an admin please step in to restore some sanity at this article. There have been two move requests in the past six weeks, both of which failed. The proposers of the move claim the article title is an NPOV violation, but they have not gained sufficient support for this position. Unfortunately, two editors have continued tagging the article with an NPOV tag after the discussion was closed, despite the failure of the proposal (WP:FLOG). Due to the extremely unpleasant atmosphere created in the debate by the proposers of the move (basically accusing anyone opposing the proposal as being chauvinist/sexist/misogynist - which has continued in the discussion on the NPOV tag), I have no desire to continue to interact with the editors involved, but someone needs to put their foot down to stop the madness. Thanks Number 57 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at it now. Please join me in article talk and we will try to thrash it out. --John (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started a formal RfC here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sports#RfC: How should articles on national sports teams handle gendered teams? I'm now going to a pub for a drink. Everyone be nice to one another. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any good reason Clavdia chauchat still has an empty block log? All her (at least recent) contribution to the article seems to be edit warring over the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Her behaviour (on talk pages) was recently raised on ANI as a result of a continuation of her long-runnung vendetta on the article's talk page, but unfortunately ignored. Number 57 13:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If the roles were reversed, that might tell me I was offended over nothing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Four reverts in eight weeks, all accompanied by contributions to the ongoing talk page dispute. See WP:NPOVD: "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." There is categorically no consensus that the dispute is resolved. As I see it the reasons provided for removing the tag have been: "I think the article is neutral so I'm unilaterally removing the tag despite the dispute" (Number 57) and "This dispute is dragging on a bit, let's remove the tag which serves as notification of the dispute (?)" (Sionk). For experienced editors this is lamentable. There should be much more respect for Misplaced Pages policy and fellow editors. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking or warning an editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please take a look at the discussion between me and another editor on Rebecca Chamberlain. Firstly, this editor completely ignores some of my queries when I answer all of hers and she's particularly aggressive: Tells me to follow rules that she doesn't herself, and runs on with commentary before I've even finished editing. But mostly I'm annoyed because after giving me a list of where citations were needed, she comes up with another list. Can editors even do this?! I don't think Jeff Koons or Richard Serra's articles have warranted this much referencing. thank you--Aichik (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if the disagreement warrants a block, but I listed the situation at WP:3. Erpert 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added comments to the article talk page about what I think happened.

In the meantime Aichik has tagged two articles I worked on sometime ago: The Guild of Boston Artists article with a "Refimprove" tag, when there were no missing citations. Farmhouse in Provence was also tagged. This may have been a misunderstanding. The citation was placed at the end of a list of bullets, which the user may have thought meant that only that sentence. There was one sentence that included the source in the sentence - and I formatted that into a citation. I posted a warning on her talk page about the non-constructive tagging of the Boston Guild article and a likely misunderstanding for Farmhouse in Provence at User talk:Aichik#January 2014. --CaroleHenson (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What do these have anything to do with our work on Rebecca Chamberlain? The fact of the matter is that you exaggerated my use of Myspace. Then I added Facebook LATER, again only using it once. I start to address the issues you bring up with my citations then you make another long list? I think you're having a hard time focussing and just need to take a break.--Aichik (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is really not a posting for ANI. LadyofShalott 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing at Whisper (app) - it's getting weird.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yesterday, paid editing at Whisper (app) came up on AN/I, so I went over there and cleaned up the article, which read like an ad. The article had been edited mostly by two SPAs and an anon located in the same city as the company's headquarters. Today we're having an edit war of sorts. Big deletion by an anon 72.87.239.18 (talk · contribs), plus putting in some names of people associated with the company.. Anon gets reverted, anon repeats same edit, anon gets reverted by a different editor. The anon is about to hit 3RR, so they can't edit again.

Then it gets strange. ViceAdmiralColorge (talk · contribs) suddenly becomes active and puts in the same material as the anon. That account hadn't made an edit in five years. Whomever is now using that account also deleted the old info on the user page about the individual. Did someone just take over an old account and use it for paid editing? I asked why they did the deletion on Whisper on their talk page, but did not receive a reply.

Anyway, I'd like to ask for a few days of semi-protection on that article until this is figured out. A sockpuppet check between the anon and the old account may be indicated as well. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Semi for one week. --AdmrBoltz 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the editing history of ViceAdmiralColorge (talk · contribs), which is sparse and narrowly distributed over certain specific articles, I suspect this was more a case of someone in the company complaining about getting changes reverted, and a coworker saying, "Wait a minute, I have a Misplaced Pages account I used to edit from". I wouldn't jump straight to an account takeover or paid editing. bd2412 T 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Plausible. We must assume good faith. Anyway, there are enough eyes on the article now to keep it from turning back into an ad, and hopefully things will quiet down. John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom gaming the system

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I have recently been donating my valuable free time to help out with the Abby Martin situation. (For those not familiar with it, see backstory discussion here and here) To make a long story short, I've been working on improving a sandbox version of the proposed article (here and here) For some reason, User:TheRedPenOfDoom visited both of those articles and removed the lead image, which was, TTBOMK, appropriately licensed from RT. Aproximately six minutes later, User:Natuur12 deleted the licensed image from Commons. When I attempted to discuss this issue with User:TheRedPenOfDoom, he refused to answer any questions about the image, ignored my patient queries, and instead treated me with derision. Curious as to how an image can be removed by one user on Misplaced Pages without discussion and then deleted six minutes later by another user on Commons, I looked at the deleting admins user talk page. On their talk page, I discovered that the admin frequents an IRC channel used for identifying problematic images (Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren). It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that TheRedPenOfDoom bypassed all forms of discussion and requested deletion of an image on IRC without discussing it, and refusing to discuss it when asked. I would like some feedback from administrators on how to handle this problem user. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It must be a full moon out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If an article or image meets the criteria of speedy deletion, it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask an available admin on IRC to delete the image. It would achieve the same result as posting a speedy deletion template. The important aspect is that there is transparency of the deletion. Natuur12 stated that the image was deleted because it was a screenshot of a copyrighted show and commons requires all images to have free licenses. While it was a good idea to contact the deleting admin for further explanation, I would recommend that you avoid antagonizing the situation. Natuur12's last action was at 22:38 January 16 and your first post occurred at 00:51 January 17. Let's assume good faith. It's likely that he or she has stepped away from the project and has not yet seen your message. Only if he or she continues to edit and then ignores your messages would it be a possible concern. If discussion were to fail, you could always contact another administrator or post at Commons:Undeletion requests. As for TheRedPenOfDoom's comments, were they a bit cheeky? I might agree. Was there a misuse of administrator tools? I do not think so, from what is visible to me. As I'm not a commons admin, I cannot agree or disagree with the image deletion and I do not see any concerns on en.wikipedia. If you feel that TheRedPenofDoom's comments towards you are uncivil enough that there needs to be a proper discussion, you are welcome to follow the procedures at dispute resolution. Mike V • Talk 05:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RT does release some of their videos on YouTube under a Standard Youtube License, meaning they would be copyrighted. As I noted below, however, they also release some videos under a Creative Commons license. Specifically, a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported license as indicated on YouTube's page here. While I cannot see the specific image, the Google cache shows it was said to be lifted from this video, which is released under the CC license. I believe this is a commercial license acceptable here on Misplaced Pages.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Many other images do exist on Commons of screencaps from RT programs. You are right that this seems to be perfectly acceptable as the official RT YouTube account uploads programs under a Creative Commons license allowing reuse. I believe TRPoD and the admin in question may have simply presumed that screencaps from a news channel were not freely licensed and thus for them it seemed like an obvious delete. Red Pen should have paid closer attention to what you were saying and not just talk smack, but I do understand why he presumed it was a copyright violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The file has been restored. However the scenario discribed by Viriditas is not what happened. There was never any kind of request at the IRC-channel. When he posted the messages I was asleep so I couldn't react or read the messages. When the message was posted it was 01:51 in my homecountry. If you disagree with any of my actions just tell me and things can be sorted out without making administrator's requests and thinking of possible scenario's that didnot happened. There was no need for it, nor was there any need to rush this. This could have been resolved so much easier. I regret that I missed the license but we are all human and I'm not perfect. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the file. If I was wrong for assuming there was a request on IRC based on your talk page history, then I apologize. But going from removal on Misplaced Pages to deletion on Commons in six minutes is unusual. What made you delete the file in the first place? Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in how this played out. What appears to have been honest was laid out like some form of mortal sin, with accusations of gaming, with the "I'm a volunteer, this should not happen to me" card thrown in. Stop the drama by a) dealing with the main party directly first, b) assuming good faith. ES&L 09:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Be disappointed all you want, but know that I dealt directly with the main party and received no reply to my query for over two hours. My good faith expired after two hours of failing to get any answer as to 1) why was the file removed, 2) why was the file deleted, and 3) were you aware that the license was valid, and that RT licenses images for use on Misplaced Pages? At no time during the course of that discussion did I receive any answer. I did, however, receive a heap of dramatic theatrics from TheRedPenOfDoom, who began this drama by following me to two separate sandbox pages and removing a lead image without discussion, an image that was then magically deleted from Commons six minutes later, by an admin who hangs out on IRC. The admin now claims that TheRedPenOfDoom did not request deletion on IRC, but we are still not given an answer as to how the image was deleted six minutes after TheRedPenOfDoom removed it erroneously without discussion. If you are trying to mop up the mess that these editors left behind, then you are too late. Blaming the messenger isn't going to work. I was working in good faith on a proto-article only to have my work removed and deleted without any rationale and without any discussion. That's unacceptable. Furthermore, any editor who removes content, better have a goddamn good reason, otherwise it is indistinguishable from harassment at best and vandalism at worst. When asked why the content was removed, no answer was received, even though an active discussion occurred on the talk page of the user. Finding that the image was actually deleted six minutes later with no discussion was simply icing on the cake. Clearly, something is rotten here, but nobody is talking. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Two hours? On a project where editors live around the globe? Not really good faith at play there at all ES&L 10:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I received four replies to my queries from TheRedPenOfDoom during those two hours, not one of which discussed the problem. There's no reason for him to be following me around and screwing with the page like this. If he wants to play in a sandbox, he's welcome to experiment in his own. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But your real issue had to do with the deletion of an image on Commons - and as such, you were required to address the deleting admin on Commons. The image deletion has little to do with the English Misplaced Pages. If you think TRPoD has issues unrelated to images, then bring it up here but don't talk about Commons. If you neglected to discuss the deltion with the deleting admin, that's your own fault - if you discussed Commons deletions on English Misplaced Pages, I'd ignore the heck out of you too. ES&L 12:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It had a speedy tagg and I just missed the free license and that it was deleted within six minutes is just a coincidence since I just cleaned up a huge part of the missing source images and there where a couple of possible copyrightviolations left so I did those to. I simply made a mistake and I regret that. Just for the record, I talk seldon about stuff like this at the IRC-channel. I understand that you are angry but I already awnsered at my commons talkpage that I missed the free license. Any disputes you have with my actions should be discussed there and not here since I didnot preform any sysop action on this project. Natuur12 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Usurpation and trademark claims at Mobonix

Please see Talk:Mobonix. Originally about one Mohammed Kabir. Usurping article about one Maurice White User claiming to be Maurice White (Markwinters1 (talk · contribs)) claims to own trademark on name "Mobonix". Illxchild (talk · contribs), creator of original article, has started an AfC on the talkpage, but I think this may go beyond a simple AfC. Dlohcierekim 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Markwinters1 (talk · contribs) claims to be Maurice White. But now we also have a Mauricelwhite (talk · contribs) involved. Socking? Impersonation? Grr. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91208466&pty=OPP&eno=16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricelwhite (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am not seeing anything more than a cross-party legal threat. Misplaced Pages has generally covered trademarked words, such as Coca-cola, without serious problems. There's always an option for a disambig if both sides are using it, unless a WP:SPI investigation finds something --Marianian 10:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If he's using Misplaced Pages to further a real world legal dispute, then we should block him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I talked to someone about this last night, and he was of the impression that neither of the Mobonixes met WP:MUSICBIO, so we might be able to solve the issue by just deleting the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Based just on content and present sourcing, I concur with the lack of notability, but have not performed WP:BEFORE thoroughly. I also don't see Misplaced Pages as having a dog in the fight between the competing claimants to the article/name/trademark/what-have-you. Dlohcierekim 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated it for deletion. I hope no one minds me editing through protection to add the Afd template. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I'm not sure what you meant but a search on EBSCOhost and Nexis returned nothing (I'm at uni). --Marianian 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean Mark editing through protection to nominate for deletion is a wonderful thing. Dlohcierekim 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who protected it, and am fine with the administrative AfD tagging. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:CensoredScribe overcategorizing

I've come across CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been creating all sorts of silly, unnecessary categories, largely centered around fiction. For example, they created Category:Alternative reproduction in fiction, Category:Fictional racists, Category:Brain transplant in fiction, and so on. They've been warned about this before, but they've created quite a few categories since then. Just thought I'd bring this up here to see if anyone had any thoughts. — HelloAnnyong 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There were some comments about this editor here, including comments from me. Georgewilliamherbert said he was going to follow up with that editor but it doesn't appear George did. I have my general concerns about the compatibility between what that editor does and what we're supposed to be doing as Misplaced Pages editors, the aims just don't quite seem to meet often enough. Zad68 03:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was cleaning up after this editor earlier today when he added a bunch of articles to strange and ill-defined categories, or to categories that are just plain wrong. I was thinking about perhaps proposing a topic ban for category-related edits, but I would certainly like to hear from CensoredScribe before suggesting this. The exchange here about the subject does not inspire me with confidence however.--Atlan (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Right... I'm not sure preventing only category-related edits will really fix the problem I am suspecting here. Can anybody review this editor's history and point to a clear area of net-positive contributions? Zad68 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking of a topic ban over a block because CensoredScribe is obviously well-meaning. But going by their talk page, there are definitely more problems than just the category one. Perhaps a case of WP:CIR.--Atlan (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that link is what I was thinking of when I was writing my previous comment. Zad68 04:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Was the warning justified? No. Move on. Lugnuts 10:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CensoredScribe over the last month has had their edits to add categories reverted by over a dozen editors for the zealous overcategorization. However it's not just overcategorization, it's placing original research categories into the articles as well. Some are of dubious thought diff, some original reseach diff2, and some just plain left field diff3. They have created multiple categories, gone on a large categorization spree then after other editors have removed some of the categories from articles subsequently blanked the categories and had them deleted. Some have also gone to deletion review. See deleted contribs. The users edits are not malicious and are certainly not vandalism they're being conducted in good faith. However they are causing a lot of work for other editors to clean up and a minor bit of disruption. Not all their edits are bad either, some are useful and reasonable such as the category Body swapping in fiction, which is a good one to have (not sure we have something similar so it's useful.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of copyright in a locked article

Our BlackLight Power article is currently locked, and I have just realised that it contains material copy-pasted from elsewhere - a clear breach of copyright. The paragraph beginning "In 2012 after studying the BLP process..." is copied from and needs immediate removal. I've as yet not checked to see if there are further such problems with the material recently added by User:Blippy, but clearly this needs doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was Blippy, a few dozen revisions back. So anything copyvioed after that, you can remove and some bored admin will take care of it later without having to check too many boxes. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I hadn't looked at Blippy's talk page last night when I locked the article, but I can see a lot of warnings there about edit-warring (which he was doing) and other problems. I'm not convinced that this editor can edit constructively. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... character assassination anyone?  :-) Please bring forth your evidence of my edit warring on the BLP article. Maybe an explanation of the lock might be in order too? In any case, the phrase "In 2012 after studying", nor anything similar, exists in the cited source. I am unable to view the offending edits, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to provide the diffs. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and a little bit of defending myself - I just looked at my own talk page. There is 1 warning and 1 block for edit warring, both back in 2009 - hardly something accurately described as "a lot of warnings there about edit-warring". Just how impartial are you Dougweller? Blippy (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) is being quite disruptive IMHO, and the aggressive anti-NPOV anti-consensus edits on Rupert Sheldrake e.g. and pathetic attempts to ignore WP:REDFLAG claims. The rudeness is perhaps a little understandable on a Wiki. However, I am not convinced that Blippy (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit science or WP:FRINGE-related articles because of his apparently bizarre and very entrenched views on the subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BBB perhaps you might have bothered to contribute on the article talk page rather than popping up out of the blue and sniping here? I don't quite see how your attempt to change the topic is strictly relevant, but I'm sure reasonable readers will notice the lack of responses to the core issues here, such as the fact that nobody bothered to check whether the claim of copyright violation actually occurred, why the page was spontaneously protected for no apparent reason - and without any discussion whatever, and - along with you - that people are resorting to smear tactics in lieu of having reasonable arguments or explanations for their actions. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, you might be missing the point of this noticeboard: it's where users are reported to administrators for further action because discussion elsewhere has escalated to a point of no-return, or the behaviours are just that horrible that action is required. As such, most commenters here are not nor shall they ever be involved in the article - after all, an WP:INVOLVED admin would be unable to take action in many cases. Most users who comment here are going to base their comments on their review of your recent edits, AND your behaviour in this thread. Those who are involved in the article will comment from a different perspective ES&L 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Blippy, I will revise my comment - no one has mentioned edit-warring on your talk page since November 17th. It is a long time since your only block, over 4 years. So that's good. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L you're correct that I have limited experience of this noticeboard. And copyright violations. I've asked several times to see the violation because a whole swathe of edits have been hidden. There were three edits within 8 mins of each other concerning the content in question, so I am keen to see the content of the last of those three edits and how it compares to the source text so that I can assess the copyright breach for myself and, where appropriate, learn from any mistakes I may have made. I reject any accusations of disruptive editing - but I have encountered several people who prefer to focus more on the editor than the edits, and assume that edits from any perspective that does not accord fully with their own is disruptive by definition, rather than per WP policy. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing about a copyright violation is that reposting it (or unhiding the relevant revisions) would itself constitute a copyright violation. So, no, you are not going to be able to look at those. LadyofShalott 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That entire paragraph was lifted from the source, with only a minor change in word order toward the end. Lady, or any other admin with magic glasses, would you mind looking at this source and this magically invisible version and confirm to Blippy here that this was properly removed? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was improperly removed, I'm saying I don't understand what was removed. To the best of my knowledge I didn't paste a chunk of text into the article - or at least, if I did so, I would be very surprised if I simply left it as is. I noticed there were 3 edits, and I would like to be able to understand how the last of those edits compares with the source material as I do recollect tidying up some of that material. Unfortunately I am not a savant, so I don't have photographic memory of each of my edits, I usually use the edit history for such things :-) If the final of those 3 edits is a copyright violation I will be unpleasantly surprised and suitably chastened, and will particularly wish to know the specifics so that I don't make any such errors in future. I endeavour to strive for good writing that reflects the sources, not reproduces them. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the explanation LadyofShalott - I see this creates somewhat of a Catch22 for me. And happy anniversary Loreena. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the version Drmies linked. I don't know if it's the final one or not, but yes, that one was lifted verbatim from the website, and you just can't do that. I'm glad my explanation helped. LadyofShalott 04:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you confirm that was the third edit Drmies? I think the complexity of the name spelling was why I copied/pasted into the editor, and obviously saved at that point in error. I may plead slip of the mouse on that and be extra careful in future  :-) However, if that was the third edit, then I am more troubled. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You added it on 09:07, 15 January 2014. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks Dougweller - that must have been the paste and save edit. I'm referring to the state of that section two edits later at 09:15, 15 January 2014. I'm keen to know if it still violated the copyright policy at that point or not, as I thought I had made sufficient changes to the text. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't change it. You added more text and tweaked that. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The revdel should be undone. RD1 states "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." As the revdel contains contributions by AtG and Bhny, the conditions are not met. The linked page, Copyright problems, clearly states "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it...". Unfortunately, it does get rather circular after that, with an "unless" looping back to RD:1, putting the reader in an infinite policy link loop of contradictory information... but anyway, just reverting the copyvio is common practice and common sense. NE Ent 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent, are you sure anyone's contributions have been removed? The diff which includes the version before the rev/del and the one after shows quite a few changes. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Since the revdel prevents determining who wrote what, the revdel itself is a violation of the Misplaced Pages CC-BY-SA license, in that removes the required attribution. NE Ent 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• That only applies "If infringement is not blatant", to cite the header of the section Ent linked. There was nothing "suspected or complicated" about this. In addition, the names of the contributors have not been removed, so the contributors can still be determined even if the particular contributions can't. A parallel situation is found in the printing of an article: for attribution a list of contributors suffices, not what they actually did. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I sit corrected: WMF licensing terms clearly specify a list of authorship is sufficient; nonetheless the revdel remains non-compliant with a logical interpretation of RD1. Since revdel's don't remove authorship info, if we rely on "list attribution", the terms redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution would never apply, which begs the question why they are there in the first place. The logical interpretation is revdel a copyvio if and only if it can be done without removing specific attribution of other authors. NE Ent 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• RD1 is OK if "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors." The question is what "attribution" means here. If my reading of "attribution" ("list attribution", sure) is correct, then RD could never accomplish that, unless the names of the non-offending contributors are deleted. It's possible to do that, of course, but I don't see how that would ever happen (unless erroneously) since user names can't contain a copyvio. Ordinarily speaking--I'm sure Borges could come up with one. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what User:Moonriddengirl has to say about this. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This dynamic IP hasn't edited since 5:35 today so there's no need for a block (and it is not a registered account either). Next time you spot IP vandalism, please inform WP:AIV. De728631 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:24.152.167.212. The purpose of this user's account seems to be to make random and incorrect changes to climate data. Eg. . Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncivil conduct of User:LazLong Sr

I contacted User talk:LazLong Sr about an editing issue regarding Greater Houston and while I have been able to help correct one issue that LazLong has had with the article and edits removing content related to universities in Galveston, I think that his attitude has been increasingly uncivil even though I feel that I have been helping him. Can anyone please give some assistance here? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've warned him about personal attacks. Minor incivility was once dealt with at WP:WQA but brilliant minds dismantled it. The best choice when faced with obstinence is abstinence...in other words, back away, go back to discussing on the article talkpage to obtain consensus, and use WP:DR where needed. Not everyone is a wiki-expert, and not everyone is able to see 2 sides ES&L 10:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute that's resulted in frayed nerves. I don't see a pattern of incivility that requires administrative intervention, or anything like that. ESL is right in suggesting the DR process, as well as giving yourself a break from the dispute. Sometimes just giving yourself 24 hours to think about something else can be beneficial, even when the dispute has run for weeks or months on end. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. I asked about it on IRC and somebody suggested ANI but I'm fine with another venue. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great to me. As long as he doesn't come to my talk page and attack me, I fine with it. Didn't know this process was here or I'd used it earlier. I'm not a "professional Wikier" and honestly don't care to be. I am a professional member of the media and I do seek honesty and balance in the few Wiki articles with which I am concerned. Thanks for your time. LazLong Sr (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional member of the media, no self-respecting member of any media organization would call someone names like that ... it's wholly unprofessional ES&L 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, exactly what names did I call him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LazLong Sr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, for not signing. I'm not used to wikiways LazLong Sr (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:WhisperToMe should have provided some differences showing the incivility but I suspect that remarks like this and this are what they are referring to. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should provide diffs next time. Since much of it was on the same page and was left up I thought it would be apparent. The one that prompted this discussion was this one. This was the one before it, and this one before it said "At this point in the process, it really doesn't matter to me what you think. You've clearly shown your "true colors" as it were." WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ATTENTION - ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's

Please notice he has continued his attacks on me just a few hours after you suggested he lay off for at least 24 hours. This is how the entire disagreement started in the first place - Instead of a civil discussion on the article's Talk Page, he came to MY house, my Talk page, being intrusive, rude, and berating. When he should have stopped, he repeatedly returned to my Talk page with his boorish attitude.

I see he's now done the same on your page - twisting my tail here. So much for "backing off." He really has a great way of showing respect for your suggestions on how to curtailment the ill will he's fostered. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and ES&L I still respectfully ask you to point out these "names" you accuse me of calling him. Thanks for your attention. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You really don't recollect calling WTM a fool and a pompous ass? It was only yesterday. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Those are not names. Those are proper descriptions, in my opinion, of MTM's words and actions on my Talk page. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Darn, I'm sorry. I didn't sign in properly. I really do apologize, I'm not a real wikier and not comfortable with all the logins and tildes so I have to go back and correct. I'm not doing it intentionally. LazLong Sr (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L and . —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's --- I'm sorry to make multiple entries without allowing adequate time for your response. Please believe me, I am not attempting to bully you by stacking things up with repeated entries. That was done to me, and it is not right to do that to someone. All that said, I'd like to remind you, I DID NOT seek out this post war. I started no attack on anyone. Someone took a civil discussion away from the article in question, aggressively brought it to MY house, to my personal Talk page, and commenced to attack and talk down to me. I responded to this affront as I would any such attack "in my house." I defended myself and yes, retaliated. I DID not seek out this fight, but I won't be bullied in my house. LazLong Sr (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have read the exchange on your talkpage - and the purpose of that talkpage is, indeed, to talk to YOU, and it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation as is provided for that purpose. There is only ONE party who is uncivil on that page: you. You're the one who begins with accusations of some form of racist agenda. When the person apologizes for an error of theirs, you attack them, and continue your subtle but obvious accusations of racism. You eventually refer to them as a fool. Sincere attempts by another editor to advise you of Misplaced Pages policies and norms CANNOT be considered an attack. Let me repeat in case you missed it: you were never attacked on the talkpage - you were asked to follow set policies that you agreed to when you signed up to this private website, and they pointed out a few areas where you have been failing to keep up to your end of the bargain. ES&L 10:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I disagree with them, but I'm then not a professional wikier, just a professional member of the working media. LazLong Sr (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Bhtpbank: Unfounded accusations, abuse, foul language and threats

This trail started when I discovered comments left at Talk:Railway electrification system that had nothing to do with improvement of the article and . These comments were an allegation sockpuppery left by Bhtpbank. As the comments were in no way connected with improvement of the article, I deleted them in accordance with the warning notice at the head of most talk pages and . For what it is worth, the sole evidence against the alleged socks, an IP address editor 86.169.32.152 and LiveRail is that they had agreed with each other. I believe that the reality is that they both disagreed with Bhtpbank (though others had as well). I shall not pursue this part further as LiveRail has been made aware of this ANI, and if he (or she) wishes to contribute, they can.

In accordance with established Misplaced Pages etiquette, I left a note on Bhtpbank's talk page as to the deletion and why . I also added a friendly warning that leaving unsupported accusations at talk pages can result in a block from editing. Bhtpbank's response on my talk page was highly abusive and used unacceptable language. I responded not following Bhtpbank's foul mouthed manner . The point about another editor being blocked for making unsupported allegations was real . This was followed by the first of Bhtpbank's threats also of note is the abusive and uncalled for edit summary.

I always check out the editing history of problem editors just to make sure it is not really me. In Bhtpbank's editing history, I discovered a series of edits deleting edits made by a new editor using an IP address 24.189.166.243. His first edit was on 12th January 2014. A check on the edits showed that the edits were essentially constructive, certainly to at least the standard expected of a new editor. Bhtpbank had launched into, what can be best described, as a tirade of reversions, (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), & The edit summaries of these last two edits betrayed Bhtpbank's reasons for the reversions. He seems to believe that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit on Misplaced Pages and his reversion was simply because he seems to think that IP address editors should not be able to revert edits. As far as I know, this is not Misplaced Pages policy. He went on with more reversions, , , , & . No edit summary was left as to why these last five were reverted, but the edit summaries above a strong clue. With these eight reverts, Bhtpbank had reverted 24.189.166.243's entire contribution to Misplaced Pages at that time. I should point out that this new editor only edited for a total of three days having been driven away by the welcome that he got from Bhtpbank.

I reverted the two edits that gave the fact that they were carried out by an IP address editor as the reason because I believe that this is an inadequate reason to revert someone else's contribution. I also reverted one of the remaining five edits , but only because although Bhtpbank had not explained his reversion, 24.189.166.243 had left a perfectly good explanation of his edit. I left the remaing five edits alone but only because no edit summaries had been left at all.

Bhtpbank's response was what now seems to be becoming a trade mark tactic - an unfounded allegation - note also the embedded (and unfounded) allegations and threat. I believe that: I am correct is saying that no administrator is going to regard three (in my view justified) reversions on a single day as 'hounding' another editor. The irony is: that that is exactly what Bhtpbank was doing to 24.189.166.243 with his eight reversions.

The final threat came when Bhtbank decided to clean up his talk page, the threat here being in the edit summary, "You will come to regret the day that you crossed me.". One immutable sign of problem editors is that they always remove negative comments from their talk page in order to appear squeaky clean.

Policies violated: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:PROFANEand WP:NEWCOMER definitely and WP:TE probably. I'm sure there must be a policy against making unfounded allegations, but I cannot find it at present.

I do not suppose for one moment that Bhtpbank's behaviour is going to result in a permanent block, but I believe that a short term block (say 1-3 months) is fully justified just to get the message across that making unfounded allegations, abusing and threatening other editors is unacceptable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite whatever this inane slapfest is about isn't clear, but it's obvious that user:Bhtpbank is repeatedly behaving in a way that is far from the standard required of editors on a shared project like this. I would suggest that any repetition of this is blockable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I read this whole complaint twice (seriously) and I'm still not sure what it's about. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? Erpert 08:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If an admin cannot make sense of this incoherence, then it must be thrown out. It is clear that DieSwartzPunkt does not like me, but cannot put down in clear intelligible English what complaints he has against me. Is this the quality of editor that Misplaced Pages needs?? If he cannot enunciate in clear sentences, then perhaps he should be blocked, for wasting everyone's time?? If an editor has read it twice, and cannot make head nor tail of it, then it is time to close this case. It seems to be a blunderbuss attack, without direction nor purpose. To be honest, I would have tried to answer the accusations made against me, but I cannot understand what crime I have committed. If someone can translate gibberish into English, then I shall be happy to face the music. - Bhtpbank (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is neither inane nor gibberish, though it is lengthy. One of the accusations is that you use bad language which, at some point and in some circumstances, can be blockable; another is that your comments about IP editing are unacceptable. (Let's put it this way: if it turns out that you reverted an IP because they were an IP, you should be blocked, as far as I am concerned.) I can find little fault with DieSwartzPunkt's grammar or coherence, but it is very, very easy to find fault with the tone of your language, here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: At Talk:Power factor a user asked a reasonable question on an apparent inconsistency between that article and another (no problem here). An IP address editor (86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) answered the query reasonably accurately. Now I don't know whether it was because the response was from an IP address editor, or because Bhtpbank's knowledge of electrical engineering is deficient on the subject (probably both), but he deleted the IP addess editor's reply (violating WP:TPOC if I read it right) without giving a reason and substituted his own response . Unfortunately, Bhtpbank's response was wrong in every respect and unlikely to help the questioner.

86.171.45.200 restored his response referring to WP:BLANKING in the edit summary (I assume he inadvertently referred to the wrong policy, but the principle was sound). He or she also posted a warning about blanking on Bhtpbank's talk page also citing the wrong policy.

Bhtpbank left an abusive comment on 86.171.45.200's talk page which more or less states that he regards himself as being entitled to delete anything he pleases from IP address editors from talk pages. He also goes on to state, "Also, disregard bvllsh1t like this from unregistered users (i.e. fvckwits like you.)" (I assume the misspellings are some attempt at avoiding some perceived bad language bot). The edit summary of, "Get stuffed" says it all. Bhtpbank also deleted the warning from his talk page (not a problem in itself), but the edit summary of, "Get lost" is an indication of the attitude that newbie IP address editors are having to endure (Did I mention that this is a new editor?).

Now this last example may seem rather trivial and maybe not worthy of an ANI in its own right, but it is a symptom of a much larger problem. As a conclusion, Bhtpbank has posted a vitriolic statement on his user talk page against IP address editors though citing a single case that seems to be a single user using multiple IP adresses to inflict vandalism (as far as I can tell there is no evidence to link 86.171.45.200 with this specific case).

While no one can prevent Bhtpbank (or anyone) having such an opinion, to actually persecute such IP address editors in practice is unacceptable behaviour. Deleting other users comments from article talk pages purely because you happen to disagree with such users posting them there, or disagreeing with the comment, is equally unacceptable. What would happen if we all did it? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @DieSwartzPunkt: please exercise more brevity on posts like this; multiparagraph posts on ANI are hard to follow. That said, I actually do agree that this treatment of a newbie by User:Bhtpbank is an immediately blockable action. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As this is an Admin's page, I ask for all non-admin comments to be struck out ... else this becomes a kangaroo court, pure and simple. How a non-admin can be assessed as knowledgeable in the policies of this place is unclear and does not help in the discussion. Also, we need to be absolutely clear on the difference between a genuine 'newbie" (i.e. a registered user) as opposed to an IP edit, which tends to be vandals and irregular editors. Wayne Ambler (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not how this page works. Anyone can comment here. --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Misplaced Pages that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I hasten to add that it doesn't mean that only Admins and experienced editors can comment. Anyone can. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And where did "Wayne Ambler" suddenly appear from? His first edit was yesterday. Odd that he should suddenly be an expert on "kangaroo courts" in Misplaced Pages pages. DieSwartzPunkt's complaints seem fairly clear to me. There is nothing confusing about them. He found an edit that seemed problematic, looked up edits by the editor (Bhtpbank) and found what seemed to him to a pattern of abusive behaviour by Bhtpbank. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This, as VQuakr pointed out, is disgusting. The current rant on their talk page is disgusting as well, besides...how to put this delicately...untelligent? And then there's the matter of old Wayne coming by, with some nonsensical comments that indicate a complete lack of understanding. Bhtpbank, you are hereby put on notice. One more personal insult (and us kangaroos will be the judge of what that is, not you), one more disparaging edit summary, one more such remark against or about an IP editor, and I will block you indefinitely, or as long as it takes for you to understand that a. your manners are terrible; and b. IP editors have every right to edit here (and I haven't seen anything useful coming from you, just cussing and reverting).

  If any other admin sees enough reason for a block right now, power to you. And to those (Erpert et al.--"WHAT DO YOU WANT???" stop shouting please) who joked about what DieSwartzPunkt tried to argue here and how they did it (Andy Dingley?) but didn't take the time to actually read it, shame on you. This is what ANI is for, and I could repeat old Wayne's argument about non-admins needing to stay away: if all you can do is gripe at someone who is making a legitimate complaint without taking them seriously, then maybe you need to stay the hell away. They came here with a valid problem, a seriously disruptive editor, and you chewed them out. I'm done before I say something negative. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, and what goes for Bhtpbank goes for Wayne too, of course, so I'm not worried about them, sock or not. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I'm not sure why you're in such a foul mood, but I wasn't joking; I seriously didn't understand the complaint. BTW, "WHAT DO YOU WANT???" is simply the link to my talk page (I comment here almost daily; you never noticed that before now?). Now then...may I offer you a spot of tea? Erpert 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here following a notice that DieSwartzPunkt placed on my user talk page expecting to make a minor contribution based on the thread title. What I discover is that this has progressed far beyond a simple matter of incivility and allegations. This is now a matter of an editor bullying and abusing new editors to the point that they give up and leave. The first of these 24.189.166.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) provided reasonable contributions for just 3 days and has not been heard from since. The second 86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for just 2 days following this piece of abuse posted by Bhtpbank on his talk page. I note that another user made a belated and laudable attempt at trying to rescue the situation.

Bhtpbank's rant on his talk page (here) is nothing short of disgraceful. I grant that a project such as this is going to attract unwanted attention from those who have no intention of making positive contributions, but Bhtpbank's assertion is that it is only anonymous editors who cause problems (and cites an exampe of just one problem). The reality is that registered editors are just as capable of causing problems as Bhtpbank himself is demonstrating so well. In fact just taking a straw poll of complaints in this ANI page (ignoring the merits of those complaints as I am not in a position to judge) at the time I made this post, shows 31 complaints against registered editors and just 4 against anonymous.

It is my belief that most of the original ANI complaint has paled into insignificance given the way that this has developed. The only issue that needs to be considered is Bhtpbank's deliberate and unwarranted bullying of potential new contributors to the project and his success in driving them away. It is my opinion that this factor alone warrants a permanent block of editing rights. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As for you User:LiveRail, I actually like you, I honestly do. Your lack of understanding of railway electrification gives me so much amusement, that I like having you around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

In my experience Bhtpbank has difficulty interacting with others in a civil manner. I've encountered him on several occasions, all relating to rail transport articles, and in all three cases his remarks were unhelpful and laced with bad faith. Last January he left a missive on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Railways , castigating all the participants for not writing particular articles to his satisfaction. It was offensive enough that I reverted it (probably shouldn't have), on the grounds that no good would come of it. He promptly followed up with a similar diatribe: . Note that, as of writing, he hasn't done any of the article writing mentioned. Last October I put North Coast Hiawatha up for GA review. Bhtpbank conducted the first review, which you can see here: Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1. His behavior was contentious throughout, and well below the usual standard for a GA review. Eventually he withdrew it, another editor stepped in, and the article was promoted. One final example: Talk:Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad (2009)#Requested move. I proposed a fairly straightforward move; the only reason I did an RM instead of just doing it was that I was not the primary author of a rather substantial article. Bhtpbank was one of two editors who commented, and left an unnecessarily inflammatory remark.

Short version: it's not just new editors. Bhtpbak treats everyone badly. In addition, he's probably sockpuppeting with "Wayne Ambler" though it's so transparent one hardly cares. If he can't treat others with a modicum of respect I think he should be shown the door. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I wondered how long it would take for you to find your way here. Cumnon in and join the party!! Seriously, I gave you very fair treatment of your GA review of North Coast Hiawatha. The ONLY problem was that you just wanted it to be a 'slam dunk', and when I gave feedback that you weren't expecting became defensive. If you ask for a critique but can't take the comments, then find another hobby, purleeeze. Reality check: your ego was bruised by my review, and you simply couldn't take it like a man, and respond positively. And now your here to stick the boot in to get even! (The truth stings ... doesn't it?) So this here we have a prime example of Misplaced Pages editors, when you don't get you way you complain here. It's like two brother, one weak one strong. When the weaker brother gets beaten, he runs to his mummy to complain. Thus Misplaced Pages editors are exposed as being 'mummy's boys' clinging on to the apron strings of their parents, fro protection from the big bad world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I welcome other editors in this thread to review Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1 and form their own opinion. I think they'll find that I responded to every critique you made, but had difficulty in getting you to actually finish the review. I believe a similar problem occurred at Talk:Bristol Parkway railway station/GA1. I was astonished to learn that after the fiasco at North Coast Hiawatha you would undertake another GA review, then claim you didn't mean to do so and leave another editor in the lurch. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, come here you big softie and let me give you a hug. ((((User:Mackensen))). There, there, there. Does your ego feel better now?? Seriously though, how do you manage with conflict in the real world?? Of course, you never experience that, stuck in front of a computer. Weel that's going to change very soon! Do you think that the internet is safe ... that you can remain anonymous and not identified for who you really are??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, that's an outing threat. On the balance of things that's a silly thing to do. I think we're done here. @Drmies: or another uninvolved administrator, can we wind this up? Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that someone uninvolved should close this; btw, I don't like where this is going... Erpert 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase "dey tuk oor jerrbs!" -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Uncivil Conduct & Insulting Language Usage of User:Kansas Bear

Reporting user:Kansas Bear for violation of WP:CIV and WP:TPG using Ad hominem abusive language. I made an edit on Hassan-i Sabbah EnWiki Article, the diff can be found below: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hassan-i_Sabbah&diff=589836561&oldid=589825202

Received this response from user: Kansas Bear https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Aretemetic#Since_you_have_a_reading_problem.....

Since you have a reading problem..... Hassan i Sabbah: Farhad Daftary, The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 311;"Hasan was born in the mid-1050s in Qumm into a Twelver Shi'i family. His father, 'Ali b. Muhammad b Ja'far b. al-Husayn b. Muhammad b al-Sabbah al-Himyari, a Kufan Arab claiming Yamani origins..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to report user:Kansas Bear for violation of WP:CIV for using insulting language on my talk page "Since you have a reading problem" Unacceptable abusive language and personal attack in violation of WP:CIV ,WP:TPG, WP:POINT and WP:DE

Notified User talk:Kansas Bear about this discussion. Aretemetic (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change the ethnicity to Persian twice despite having been reverted by Kansas Bear with the edit summary "restored referenced information, per article" and despite the contents of the article being inconsistent with your update ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with this sort of thing is tiresome/stressful/irritating/downright maddening at times. Sure, maybe KB should have kept his cool, but it just isn't always possible. I'd like an answer to Sean's question as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Well, this is not a matter of whining obviously. There are some clear code of conducts and protocols here at WP and by default it is mandatory to adhere them. If it is not possible for someone to write in a respectful manner and keep their temper, therefore maybe is not a good idea to be here!Aretemetic (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) @Sean: Changed it because of inconsistency with the information in the Article. References were added by Kansas Bear the second time around, still this can be a matter of debate when writing a biography of a historic figure. Aretemetic (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Under certain interpretations, what Kansas Bear wrote on your talkpage isn't even uncivil. You changed the changed the sourced ethnicity of a historical figure to another ethnicity without citing any sources. When KB undid this change as unsourced, you're then supposed to go to the talkpage of the article to discuss. Instead, you simply changed the ethnicity back to your preferred version, without a source. KB reverted you again, implored you to use the talkpage, and then left a message at your talkpage with a mildly uncivil section title. No action is going to be taken against Kansas Bear for the "reading problem" comment, and you need to learn in the future to discuss an edit to an article once it's challenged instead of edit warring. 205.166.218.66 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Aretemetic has now removed the Arab ethnicity again(ie. (1)edit-warring), and added Rashid ud-din Fazalellah 'Jame-ut-Tawrikh', pg. 1 as a "source" for Persian ethnicity. (2)Now does anyone believe that the Jami ut Tawrikh mentions Sabbah on page 1 of this book? This is typical modus operandi of POV editing, (1)edit war, (2)fake sources, and attempts to remove editor(s) that disagree with him(see above). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the text - now it's up to Aretemetic to quote the whole sentence he claims says this and confirm the page number. It's that or be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Aretemetic, I think this shows the state of the article before the first of your 2 edits that changed the ethnicity, so your statement that you "Changed it because of inconsistency with the information in the Article. References were added by Kansas Bear the second time around" does not appear to be accurate. If you read the article and didn't see that information, and it wasn't "a reading problem", what explains your action ? An editor who considered ethnicity to be a matter of debate in this case wouldn't make an edit that stated ethnicity as a fact, so that statement does not explain your action either. Please provide a straightforward explanation for why you changed the ethnicity that is consistent with the evidence. If your objective is to advocate the notion that the subject was Persian for some reason just say so and explain why. Admins can then take the appropriate action based on your accurate description of your behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like it's boomerang season again... Erpert 08:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of Arakanese king pages by IP 78.179.27.173

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is to report changes by IP 78.179.27.173 (talk) on Arakanese kings. He's changed the religion to Islam without providing any citations. That they were Buddhist is not disputed in any scholarly book, I'm aware of, and is cited in the articles. I don't want to get to revert wars. Please look into it. Hybernator (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 24 hours per this. Also, his edits have all been reverted by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:174.16.246.163

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear legal threats by 174.16.246.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see this diff.

Looks like the IP has already been blocked. §FreeRangeFrog 20:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Elephant Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently added a discussion to the talk page on "Elephant". User Apokryltaros posted this warning on my talk page. I just thought that that was real uncalled for. All I did was suggest unprotecting the elephant page. And I get a warning of a block? 67.182.171.189 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• That warning is really inappropriate. That being said, the article itself has had... issues in the past and it may very well end up being semi-protected for a long time. - Penwhale | 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Penwhale here. If Apokryltaros has not already done so, I suggest he retract that warning. LadyofShalott 03:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing dispute on Capital FM Arena Nottingham article

I am not too sure of how to approach this issue. Rushton2010 has been blindly reverting edits to the Capital FM Arena Nottingham, despite factual information. The main dispute is former naming of the arena. The article focuses on the arena, which is a part of the National Ice Centre. This editor insists on constantly adding information that refers to the National Ice Centre and NOT the arena. The first action took place on 9 October 2013 when he/she reverted an edit over verbiage of past name. The arena was opened under the name "Nottingham Arena". The editor is claiming it's still acknowledged as Nottingham Arena, although is no local or national media source to support his/her theory. Also on that day, he added a bunch of erroneous previous/former names citing a "add name that is still on the roadsigns approaching the city", other names were included with no sources. On 20 October 2013 and 24 October 2013, I removed this names due to no sources, which the editor reverted citing vandalism. When the editor did decide to add sources, he/she references another WIKI site and TripAdvisor.

When an non-IP editor intervenes (in the article & on the user's page) he/she simply ignores and continues to revert edits citing disruptive editing. On 22 December 2013, the editor adds irrelevant information to the article. When Onepoint21GigaWatts disputes this information, he reverts the edits, citing disruptive editing and vandalism. On 12 January 2014, I reverted the edits citing information pulled directly from the arena's official website, which again, he/she reverts the edits citing vandalism. This followed by a dubious warning left on my talk page. This editor has clearly shown he/she is not in a position to discuss his.her edits in a reasonable manner. 50.152.18.168 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lets be very clear what is happening here. There may have been an argument for you to remove un-cited names -but for quite while they have all been referenced, and you continue to remove such reference material. On (at a quick count) 9 occasions you have removed referenced information from the article; and on another occasion used a to do the same. More recently adding in un-cited incorrect hidden text.
Yes, when I initially added an additional name, I did so without a reference, -using local knowledge and putting it in the edit summary so it was clear to other editors I was not pulling it from thin air, while I had no reference. I think you'll find nothing about that is wrong or improper. As per Misplaced Pages:Be bold - and just Misplaced Pages's general practice - information is added to articles all the time without references (especially these low interest local articles); usually with the intention of references added later - as I did. Other people have added things this article and never added references: eg. the fasting selling shows, the darts etc. Regardless, all the names have been cited with reliable references - including local newspapers and the tour archive of a band who played there- and yet you continue to attack only the referenced material.
On a side note, the TripAdvisor reference you mentioned was added for the bit in brackets. I personally had never heard of that full "Nottingham Arena At National Ice Centre", but stumbled across its use. As I am not a biased editor, and believe in wikipedia's policy , I added it in as there was a source to verify it. It is not neutral editing to ignore such things you find during research. I would say I am happy for it to be removed, but then what right do I to decide referenced material should be deleted because I don't like it? - Maybe you should have a think about that one!

So I have added unsourced information months ago, it was removed, I added it back with references (Bold, revert, cycle).
You and your sock puppets have over a period of a few months repeatedly removed referenced materials...
Your only starting the ANI because you got here before me. I have reported your sockpuppetry and requested protection for the article to prevent further disruptive/vandalistic removals of referenced material.

Best -- Rushton2010 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Combie-tractor

For the last 6 hours, this user has been looking at new articles and placing some rather bizzare warnings.:

• ] where an article is tagged as ref improve with ~65 references. When I tried to discuss the matter, I was summarily reverted: ].
• Several examples of tagging an article for speedy deletion after an unreasonably short time e.g. ]. I discussed this here ] at 20:51 UTC. At 21:11 this happenned ].
• Several incorrect templates, e.g. the example above where the article clearly states the article is about Tim Matthews a racing driver and yet is tagged as having no context. Again I tried to discuus the matter but was reverted : ]

Combie Tractor has now done the following: ] where the article has been tagged a minute after creation, with the wrong tag (Doesn't state importance when the article says the subject was an England Mascot). On the other hand, he has done nothing about the fact that the author apparantly has a conflict of interest.
I am sorry, but this editor does not seem to be competent to be doing this sort of work and judging by the way efforts to talk are just reverted then I don't see any prospect of competence being learn't. Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the messages on this user's talk page are explanations of why his/her speedy deletion tags are inappropriate. But I don't see any response on their part. Liz 01:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The user is continuing with his mistaken CSD tagging , , --CutOffTies (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also had a problem with this user with a CSD based on an inappropriate section A7 suggesting that perhaps his understanding of the CSD criteria is not clear. In any case I've been a Misplaced Pages for eight years now and this is exactly why I've stopped contributing as much as I used to when I find a gap in Misplaced Pages. --LW (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

LW refers to an article called Ritmeyer. A quick search on Google showed that the article to which LW refers at one time included the words "Ritmeyer is a prominent niche piano company, known for making pianos of". Clearly, the article does make a claim of notability and should not have been deleted per WP:A7. Can the article please be undeleted? Op47 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• He was inactive for 7 months, and the first thing the editor did upon returning to active editing was new page patrolling, CSD tagging, and refimprove tags. Something's not right here... - Penwhale | 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oy. User:Combie-tractor, in case it is unclear: you are not competent enough to perform new page patrols. Your overtagging drives editors away. Please stop immediately. My suggestion to the board here is that Combie be warned that his next poorly-executed new page patrol will result in a block to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Rajpurohit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am bringing this report with unclean hands as I have been engaged in an edit war for the last two weeks.

On 22 Dec 13, I stumbled across the Rajpurohit article while on recent changes patrol. I looked through the article and relized that several editors had been attempting to drop unsourced, POV edits on a caste-related article. I reverted the changes and added the article to my watchlist.

On 3 Jan 14, Rajpurohit-Veer registered his account and made his first edit to the article. He was reverted four times by Sitush over the following three days.

On 11 Jan 14, I reverted RV's changes, since his edit had removed sourced content in favor of caste pushing. RV reverted back to his edit, telling me via his edit summary to read the info provided by the links. I checked the first link, Rajpurohit India, and realized the info he was adding was a direct copy-paste from the website. I proceeded to revert his change again on copyvio grounds.

RV reverted again and chided me for reverting, stating that it was not a copyvio since his community owns the website. I tried explaining that the info is still copyrighted, but he refuses to listen.

I admit that I know I was wrong to constantly revert, but the user is refusing to listen. The outcome I am looking for is for another editor to explain to this user that the info he is adding is still a copyright violation. I know that caste-related articles are under general sanctions, so if my conduct is found to be grossly disruptive, I will accept any sanctions given. I just want this copyright violation to be handled. Ishdarian 03:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have full protected while we sort this out (for 3 days). I think it's on the version with the questioned text in it, if I read the history right. I didn't intentionally lock the "wrong version" in - I just froze as is.

If any other admin confirms copyright status we should remove the info asap.

I am contacting the other editor on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ishdarian, the only problem with your editing is that you didn't report this situation sooner. You found someone who was repeatedly dumping nonfree copyrighted text into an article, and you and Sitush did the right thing in removing it; the exceptions to the three-revert rule include the removal of copyvio text. Copyvio text re-removed, both per what GWH says and per the copyvio exception in WP:PREFER. I've also blocked Rajpurohit-Veer: someone who persistently adds copyvios despite warnings just isn't getting the point and needs to understand that this isn't tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

TFA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Today's featured article is Nigersaurus, and it's been hit with the inevitable re-spellings, along with image vandalism. I semi-protected it for three hours a while ago, but it will warrant closer attention that most TFAs for the next 20 hours. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to someone protecting this for the rest of the time that it is up, since it is inevitably going to get worse as the rest of the western world wakes up today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

BookSpam?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I issued a warning to a new user for promoting their book as BookSpam (refspam) and removed their additions but I have an established user that seems to disagree with my characterization. After explaining myself on the talk page, the established user decided to restore the bookspam while we were still discussing the matter and apparently did so inappropriately using rollback without an edit summary. I am asking for other eyes to opine on whether this is bookspam and on the use/misuse of rollback.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A new editor, in their first four edits, added a reference to an article in a professional journal (not a book) to three WP pages. The reference was completely on topic (archeology, remote sensing). It appears to be fine to me as "Further reading". There was no attempt to suggest that it was used as a source for the article. I am concerned that someone new, who is trying to add useful content is accused of furthering a private agenda (spam). --Greenmaven (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On the rollback without summary - we had established our positions on the editor's talk page. There were three articles; I did not see a need for an edit summary on each one. My reasons for rolling back had already been stated. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is grounds for removal:"Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool."

I was looking for your reasoning based in policy through the edit summary and it never happened because you misused the tool. You didn't (don't) have a stance based on policy on the talk page either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

One can't use Rollback like that. Using Rollback because one does not see the need to give an edit summary is absolutely not what the tool is meant for. No comment on whether the tool should be removed from this user, but I agree that Rollback was used improperly here. Doc talk 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that my use of rollback was improper. I have just read Misplaced Pages:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback. I had no idea the rules for use were so restrictive. The spam question is still open. I will agree that it is too specific to be relevant to Remote sensing. I think it can be justified for the other two articles. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The rules are quite restrictive. Unless it's deleting blatant vandalism, you must use the undo function every single time over Rollback, ideally with an edit summary attached. Doc talk 06:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. This is the first time I have been criticised for misusing the tool in the 13 months I have had it. I will be more careful now that I have had this explained. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I recommend that you be allowed to retain it. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Greenmaven, have you read the article that the new editor is trying to add? Why would you add this back again if you haven't? Why are you trying to justify their edits?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I have reviewed the table of contents and list of contributors, and given the reputable publisher, it seems legitimate and appropriate for "Further reading" at Remote sensing (archaeology). Cullen Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It is improperly pushed into articles. Why would you assist bad behavior against policy? Here is their one and only contrib on the Deutsch wiki. Here is their contribs on Es wiki. Start looking and you'll see the account exists on other wikis now solely to spam this particular article. It should be ripped out of all of them with prejudice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No I have not read the book. From an independent review: "This book provides a state-of-the art overview of satellite archaeology and it is an invaluable volume for archaeologists, scientists, and managers interested in using satellite Earth Observation (EO) to improve the traditional approach for archaeological investigation, protection and management of Cultural Heritage." it continues: "The authors are renowned experts from the international scientific community.

Audience: This book will be of interest to scientists in remote sensing applied to archeology, geoarcheology, paleo-environment, paleo-climate and cultural heritage." I gave my reasons for leaving the edits in on the Talk Page of the editor, at the beginning of this discussion. I still think it can reasonably be included on the two articles that are specifically about archeology. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I expressed the opinion that this book published by a reputable academic house was appropriate for further reading at one single article. Do you disagree? If so, why? This isn't crank theorizing by a self-published author. I don't monitor other language Wikipedias. New users are often over-enthusiastic and often need to have our policies and guidelines explained. Except for you and me, Berean Hunter, as we were exemplary from our very first edits. At least you were. So, I wouldn't conclude "bad behavior" so rapidly. If the pattern of behavior persists, then I may come to agree with you. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Letting the reference stand in one article, Remote sensing (archaeology), sounds like a good solution. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it's spam, and yes it should be removed until someone provides a justification for including it. Casual editors have no idea how many spam links are added each day, and it is only hard work from volunteeers such as Berean Hunter that keep articles relatively free from promotional gumph. Consider how many books and articles have been written on a topic such as Archaeology, and then consider how the article would look if "further reading" listed all links that passed the test proposed above, namely that it's relevant and a glowing review has been found. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Cad and the Dandy - edits by Josephgallos

Much to my disapointment, I must request aministrator intervention re Cad and the Dandy and the edits of Josephgallos. Since getting involved with the article Savile Row some 2+ years ago, and getting that down to a less spam-like form, I have taken an interest in related articles. One such is Cad and the Dandy, created by user Josephgallos. I don't question WP:NOTAB, but persistent revision by Josephgallos - and nearly breaking the three revert rule - have recently brought to my attention the (now admitted) fact that Josephgallos is in fact commerically paid SEO consultant to the subject of this article. I have advised Josephgallos of our rules re WP:BIAS, and asked for a discussion of the issues, but am continually faced with non-engagement. Given that in the last 24hrs I have placed a vandal3 tag on his talk page, and a WP:BIAS notice on the article - the latter of which was reveresed - I am disapointingly now forced to request adinistrator intervention. The core problem here is that Josephgallos appears not to understand the difference between bias/avertorial and encyclopedic. Your quick intervention and input would be most appreciated - Thank You! Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, I noticed that you twice removed the Good Article tag on Cad and the Dandy without the article being delisted. I also don't think the vandal tag was appropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! My mistake on the GA, but in light of the admitted bias/lack of engagement plus revert of my addition of the BIAS tag, I hope that you can understand the choice. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Trident13, you need to file a Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment if you want the page to be delisted from GA. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am appealing to the administrators to review this matter seriously. User:Trident13 has been trying to delete important verifiable content referenced with reliable published sources without valid reasons. User:Trident13 also engaged in a questionable practice to edit the content in question so it looks like they are inconsistent before deleting them altogether thus appearing in the history section like he deleted an inconsistent content. This is a deliberate manipulation attempt suggesting bias on his side. He is accusing me of vandalism citing content which I answered with supporting published sources. When he cannot provide valid reasons for deletion, he proceeded to attacking me and using WP:BIAS as an excuse to his Misplaced Pages:Blanking Vandalism. For the record, I did not create the Cad and the Dandy article. But information that is true, verifiable, and facts deserved to be included in the encyclopedia, thus I reverted back the content deleted by User:Trident13.

I have reasons to believe that User:Trident13 is biased for a few reasons:

1) User:Trident13 is the author of Chester Barrie article. Chester Barrie is a direct competitor of Cad & the Dandy

2) Just prior to accusations of vandalism by Trident13, I undid a revision from an unlogged user (https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=589712653&oldid=588460890).

3) User:Trident13 on several occasions has been replacing the "good article" tag of the Cad & the Dandy article with advert tag since 2012 without any reason at all. example is: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cad_and_the_Dandy&diff=506077052&oldid=488408319

--Josephgallos

I have made it clear on the articles talkpage, I have no commercial association with the clothing industry, and was/have never been paid or asked to create an article for Chester Barrie. Yes I created it, but that was because it was mentioned on the Savile Row article which I had heavily editted, and I found it worthy of inclusion passing WP:NOTAB (I have also never bought suits from either establishment, or Savile Row). I also don't at present want to add to the current hot-pot which is the edits of Josephgallos by asking for review of GA status for the Cad and the Dandy. Simply put (again) I just want text to reflect encyclopedic content, not the SEO advertorial which Josephgallos has admitted on both the articles talkpage and his own user page (see edit record) been paid to insert. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You don't want to go through GAR but you want to come to ANI? That seems odd (I know ANI is a shorter process, but...). Anyway, I think this is another boomerang situation. Erpert 20:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be reviewed anyway, as its GA quality is questionable. Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"putin article" someone inserted "mafia state" again to the putin article DESPITE TALKPAGE RULING! this is not a content dispute

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this is not a content dispute this is unconstructive editing! some users inserted the mafia state edit in the putin article despite in the talkpage section "dictator and "American diplomatic cables" the ruling was "The result of this discussion is that this should only mentioned in the body of the article, not the lede" Kalix94 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would help of you refrained from adding misleading or no edit summaries and instead pointed editors to the talk page discussion. People looking at your deletion will have no indication there's a valid reason for your deletion. --NeilN 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to the user? The only interaction I see is you reverting him and tying things in all caps. No administrative action seems to be needed right now. only (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

the user violated the ruling on the talkpage, so administrative action is needed Kalix94 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't take "administrative action" for making one edit against current consensus or making an edit disregarding a discussion they may not have known existed. Let it go. --NeilN 15:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the user in question did participate in the discussion on the talk page, and modified the closing to his own desired outcome a few minutes after adding the information back to the lead of the article. only (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you are posting here, you are told a couple times, in bold lettering, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." You did not do this. Yet no one is suggesting administrative action is needed against you. --NeilN 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neil, Tataral participated in the RfC, so it's hard to argue they aren't aware of it. In addition, not only did they put the material into the lead, they also modified the closing of the already-closed RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, There were two separate editors which is why I had an "or" clause. Darkness Shines did not participate in the discussion and may have just seen a deletion with no valid explanation. --NeilN 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

may I suggest using your nightstick officer_Fortuna 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted a sock, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying whether he is or he isn't, but it did occur to me even before you posted here. I'm not familiar with that particular master, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kalix94 is indeed an obvious sockpuppet engaged in pro-Putin advocacy. I and other experienced editors who have followed that particular article over some years have noticed there is a constant campaign, often by new editors and IP addresses, to delete any criticism from the Vladimir Putin article, while drowning it in praise of Putin. There is no consensus whatsoever to change the text that has been stable for quite some time now and that was agreed by previous consensus, as claimed by User:Kalix94. The article is already 99% positive, so the very little criticism that is included must be retained. Tataral (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But you do not get to supersede an experienced, uninvolved editor's close with your own. , . Please stop. --NeilN 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet again. Tataral, as an "experienced" editor you should know better than to change the close of an RFC you commented in. --NeilN 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerned about threats of on-wiki police action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently saw a discussion between LoganHermann123 (talk · contribs) and WonderBuono! (talk · contribs) over edits made to List of Winx Club episodes. LoganHermann123 disagreed with some changes WonderBuono made to the article and reverted them twice, the second time with the edit summary Stop it now! We called the police yesterday! If you dont stop it we are allowed to block your account! GET IT . WonderBuono attempted to discuss this with him, but he removed the messages with the edit summary not important. He also posted a reply on WonderBuono's talk suggesting that that he had called the police and was informed that further edits to the page would result in a block of WonderBuono. Something should be done, but I'm not sure what.--Auric talk 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

217.251.80.40 (talk · contribs · 217.251.80.40 WHOIS) has now removed the content with the edit summary We called the police! It has the right to stand there!--Auric talk 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection may be in order.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this for me; I wasn't sure how to go about it. I believe that user has also used the IPs: 87.146.198.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 87.146.200.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as they've both used the same threat (latter was to a different user). WonderBuono! (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article and blocked the most recent sock account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Barek; that should take care of it. It's a pretty stupid set of edits/comments, and if disruption returns perhaps a range block can be considered, if that's viable. I've no doubt that the legal threat won't be retracted so at least that indef block will stand. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek-5

Holdek (talk · contribs) found a new entertainment. This time they start to add stub templates to a start-class article and edit-war over my removal of these templates . Last time they were blocked for a month for destructive editing. I am afraid time has come for an indefinite block, given that their contribution to Misplaced Pages is net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that this editor is disruptive. Whether it is for entertainment or lack of competence is uncertain. This speedy deletion nomination is cause for concern. Some sort of block seems necessary, at least until this user can be reined in.- MrX 16:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Re. the SD, it's probably a rival company. _Fortuna 16:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I do think the editor is disruptive and net negative, but I do not think they are a COI editor or smth. Most of their activity is to delete paragraphs from random articles which have {{cn}} templates. I never noticed any specific interest to companies.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages: Assume good faith. Holdek (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good faith can only be assumed when the facts are not clear. here, the facts are available for all and sundry to see. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Holdek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) To be fair, concerning the speedy deletion nom that MrX pointed out, that article does deserve to be deleted, as explained here. Erpert 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Scratch that; the article has greatly improved since the AfD began. Erpert 07:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Holdek, when I said the facts are there for all to see, I was referring to your semi disruptive behaviour. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think he actually knew that, and was being ironic _Fortuna 16:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Holdek (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note:The following thread got split from this and misplaced under the edit warring discussion below. Since it's clear that several editors want to continue this thread, I'm moving it back here to let it continue and allow the edit warring thread to continue separately. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards